Defaulting in filing of annual return
This query is : Resolved
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
19 December 2012
Defaulting in filing of Annual return and Balance sheet for the financial year 2007-2008,2009-2010,2010-2011,2011-12
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENSES OF THAT?
AND CO IS NOT OPERATING NOW?
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO CLOSE THE COMPANIES?
IF CO FILES ALL THE ABOVE FINANCIAL RETUN WHAT ARE THE PENALTY ARE THERE?
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENSES OF THAT?
AND CO IS NOT OPERATING NOW?
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO CLOSE THE COMPANIES?
IF CO FILES ALL THE ABOVE FINANCIAL RETUN WHAT ARE THE PENALTY ARE THERE?
19 December 2012
Hi
162. Penalty and interpretation for not filing of Annual Return.—
(1) If a company fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in sections 159, 160 or 161, the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may, extend to 1[five hundred rupees] for every day during which the default continues.
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 159, 160, and 161, the expressions “officer” and “director” shall include any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the Board of directors of the company is accustomed to act.
162. Penalty and interpretation for not filing of Annual Return.—
(1) If a company fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in sections 159, 160 or 161, the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may, extend to 1[five hundred rupees] for every day during which the default continues.
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 159, 160, and 161, the expressions “officer” and “director” shall include any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the Board of directors of the company is accustomed to act.
19 December 2012
Penalty for non-compliance of section 220:
If default is made in complying with section 220(1) and (2), the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees for
every day during which the default continues. [Section 220(3)]
It has been held in the case of Ravindra Narayan v Registrar of Companies (1994) 2 SCL 281 (Raj), that where there is a managing director of company, other directors cannot be held to be falling within the expression 'officer who is in default' in section 5 and cannot be held liable for default in complying with
requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 220.
Where directors failed to file balance sheet and profit and loss accounts despite notice, it was decided that any director of the company who is knowingly guilty of the default would be an 'officer in default'
under section 5 read with section 2(30). [Bachrenj Baid v State of West Bengal Case No. 809 (Kol) 92].
In the case of Alim Ahuja and Another v Registrar of Companies (2006) 129 Comp Cas 104 (Raj), the Registrar of Companies sent notices to the directors calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be taken for their prosecution for contravention of section 159/160/162/220 and as to why they should not be prosecuted under Section 210(5) of the Act, for the default in complying with section 210(3)
of the Act. On receipt of these notices, the petitioners filed application to High Court for grant of relief under section 633 of the Act instead of showing cause to the ROC praying that they were not active
directors of the company and are being not connected with the management of the company.
The Court held that that the plaintiffs have voluntarily continued as directors of the company. The Board of Directors has never resolved to exempt them from their responsibility and duty as directors to
comply with the provisions of the Act. It is hardly of any substance that petitioners are senior citizens. They had accepted the directorship voluntarily and presumed to have known of their responsibility, obligation, liability and duty under the Act.
It was further held that rather than approach to this Court at this stage they should have placed their cases for consideration before the respondent but that has not been done. That apart the notices have been given only for launching the prosecution against the petitioners and in their prosecution they can take all these defences and where they are able to prove the same the Court may not punish them for violation of provisions of the Act.
If default is made in complying with section 220(1) and (2), the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees for
every day during which the default continues. [Section 220(3)]
It has been held in the case of Ravindra Narayan v Registrar of Companies (1994) 2 SCL 281 (Raj), that where there is a managing director of company, other directors cannot be held to be falling within the expression 'officer who is in default' in section 5 and cannot be held liable for default in complying with
requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 220.
Where directors failed to file balance sheet and profit and loss accounts despite notice, it was decided that any director of the company who is knowingly guilty of the default would be an 'officer in default'
under section 5 read with section 2(30). [Bachrenj Baid v State of West Bengal Case No. 809 (Kol) 92].
In the case of Alim Ahuja and Another v Registrar of Companies (2006) 129 Comp Cas 104 (Raj), the Registrar of Companies sent notices to the directors calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be taken for their prosecution for contravention of section 159/160/162/220 and as to why they should not be prosecuted under Section 210(5) of the Act, for the default in complying with section 210(3)
of the Act. On receipt of these notices, the petitioners filed application to High Court for grant of relief under section 633 of the Act instead of showing cause to the ROC praying that they were not active
directors of the company and are being not connected with the management of the company.
The Court held that that the plaintiffs have voluntarily continued as directors of the company. The Board of Directors has never resolved to exempt them from their responsibility and duty as directors to
comply with the provisions of the Act. It is hardly of any substance that petitioners are senior citizens. They had accepted the directorship voluntarily and presumed to have known of their responsibility, obligation, liability and duty under the Act.
It was further held that rather than approach to this Court at this stage they should have placed their cases for consideration before the respondent but that has not been done. That apart the notices have been given only for launching the prosecution against the petitioners and in their prosecution they can take all these defences and where they are able to prove the same the Court may not punish them for violation of provisions of the Act.
19 December 2012
Default in filing Balance sheet and profit and loss account is a compoundable offence:
Default of section 220 of the Act is compoundable under section 621A of the Act. But first the default should be made good and only then application for compounding of offence under section 621A will be maintainable. [General Produce Company Ltd. (1994) 4 Comp LJ 99 (CLB)]
Default in filing Balance sheet and profit and loss account is a compoundable offence:
Default of section 220 of the Act is compoundable under section 621A of the Act. But first the default should be made good and only then application for compounding of offence under section 621A will be maintainable. [General Produce Company Ltd. (1994) 4 Comp LJ 99 (CLB)]
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- LTCG ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL LAND
- Treatment of Proceeds from sale of Jointly held Flat
- Refund of return filed for deceased
- Amount received in account which was given to sons as gift
- GSTR 1 CAN NOT BE FILED AFTER 3 YEARS
- Guidance Required on Raising Sale Invoice & E-Way Bill for Machines Already at Customer Premises
- Want to zero reversal electronic credit reversal ledger
- ISSUANCE OF TAX INVOICE IF CAR/BIKE SOLD SHOWN IN FIXED ASSET
- LTCG loss on delisted shares
- TDS Threshold and deduction
- Input credit on sports event
- GST on Tobacco - as per new notification
- Cant amend a 26QB
- "Please ensure that the Total of the Deductions u/s 54F match the same in Table D in Sch CG"
- Composition Dealer GST Annual Return Filing process
- TDS under section 195.
- Filing GST Returns after death of proprietor
- Registered Required in GST Act
- Switch over to Composition Scheme
- Gstr 9 and itc
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
