Anapplicationunder Section 252(3) oftheCompanies Act, 2013forrestoration.

And

In the matter of:

DarswanaVinimay Private Limited, CIN- U51909WB2014PTC202616

…… Struck Off In the matter of:

IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

....Appellant/Petitioner

-Versus-

THEREGISTRAROF COMPANIES,West Bengal &ors. ,.....Respondents

Date ofPronouncement: 12.03.2024

CORAM:

1.Mr. RohitKapoor, Member (Judicial) 2.Mr. BalrajJoshi,Member (Technical)

Counsel/Authorized Representatives appeared throughvideo Conference/ Physical

Mr.S.K. Tiwari, Adv. ]For thepetitioner

Mr. Jayesh Choradia, Adv. ]

Mr. M.K.Barua, DROC ]For ROC,West Bengal

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ORDER

Per: RohitKapoor, Member (Judicial)

1. This Company Petition has been filed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Kolkata u/s 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of name of the Struck off company in the register of the Companies, maintained in the office of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal. It is stated that the name of the company was struck off on

24.08.2018duetonon-filing ofstatutory returns bythecompany.

2. Recovery proceedings are pending against the Respondent Company for the assessment years 2015-16to 2018-19.

3. It iscontended that theRegistrarof thecompanies has reasonable cause to believethat the company was not carrying onbusiness or inoperation for the period of last two (2) immediate preceding financial years. Accordingly, the competent authority has struck off the name of the petitioner company under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956.

4. It is further contended that the Company Authorised Capital of Rs.100000/-and paid-

up Capital of Rs.100000/-as per master data of the Company. If the name of the company is not restored, it would cause would great prejudice to the appellant and loss to the revenue to the exchequer. Upon the said contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for passing of an order for restoration of the name of the appellant company.

5. Notices were issued to the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal. The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal has submitted a report. It was stated in the report that only after the compliance of requirements to be met under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, Registrar of Companies, West Bengal has struck off the name of the Company from theregister.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal has not objected to this application for restoration of the name of the company. We feel that it is just that the name of the Company is restored. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Tribunal underSection 252of the Companies Act, 2013,the petition is allowed onthe Following terms:

a) The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, the respondent herein, is directed to restore the original status of the petitioner company as if the name of the Company had not been struck off from the register of Companies with the resultant and consequential actions like changing status of petitioner companyfrom ‘Struck off’to‘Active’

b) The Petitioner Company is directed to file all pending statutory document(s)

including Annual Accounts for the period of 2015-16 to2018-19along with prescribed fees/additional fee/fine as decided by Registrar of Companies, West Bengal within 45 days from the date on which its name is restored on the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal.

c) The petitioner is directed to deliver a certified copy of the order with Registrar ofCompanies, West Bengal within thirty days ofthe receipt of this order.

d) On such delivery and after due compliance with the above directions, the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal is directed to publish the order in the Official gazetteunder hisoffice name and seal;

e) This order is confined to the violations, which ultimately led to the impugned action of striking off the name of the company, and it will not come in the way of Registrar of Companies, West