Cp/131/2012 Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Registrar Of Companies & Ors

CP No. 131 of 2012 | IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAKT CHAN DIGARH CP No. 131 of 2012Date of decision: 11.03.201 ithe Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta weuneeee Petitioner Versus| Registrar of Companies and others seseesees keeESpONnde Coram:Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.(Oral) This petition is filed by the Income Tax departmentunder Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, (for short, ‘the Act1956') for restoration of the name of the Company(respondent No.a) to the Register of the Registrar of Companies(respondent No. 1). The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No.a was engaged in the business of finance and sale/purchase ofland and was assessed to income tax upto the assessment year1988-1989. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 stopped filing its returns.A huge demand of tax penalty and interest under the Income TaxAct, 196l(for short, the Act, 1961’) for different assessment years1e. from 1975-1976 to 1987-1988 was raised by the AssessingOfficer against respondent No. 2 to the tune of=1,62,5/,268/-. The Tax Recovery Officer of the Income TaxDepartment, Ludhiana started the recovery proceedings undersection 222 of the Act, 1961 and under the provisions of Second CP No. 131 of 2012 schedule of the Act, 1961. It is also alleged that there are threeappeals pending in this Court bearing RSA No. 4574 of 2011, RSANo. 4578 of 2011 and RSA No. 4579 of 2011 filed on 23.09.2011 bythe Tax Recovery Officer-I, Ludhiana. These appeals have arisentrom the suits filed by the vendees from respondent No. 2 whoentered in the agreement with them for sale of the propertywithout disclosing that the said immovable property was attachedby the Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department forrecovery of the tax arrears. Respondent No.2 was sought to be served in the secondappeals pending in this Court and the petitioner came to know thatservice cannot be effected upon respondent No. 2 because itsname has been struck off from the Register of Registrar ofCompanies on 18.10.2011 in terms of Section 560(S) of the Act,1956. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not receive anynotice of striking off the name of respondent No. 2 from theRegister of Registrar of the Companies under Section 560(3) of theAct, 1956 because all the letters issued to the petitioner byrespondent No. I! were delivered back with remarks of“incomplete address’. The petitioner has further submitted thatthe petitioner falls within the definition of Creditors under Section960(6) of the Act, 1956 of the defaulter company l1.e. respondenNo. 2 and has thus, filed this application for restoring the name ofrespondent No.2 in the Register of Registrar of Companies notonly tor the purpose of recovery of the arrears of tax etc. but alsopursuing aforesaid three Regular Second appeals pending in thisCourt. CP No. 131 of 2012 Notice in the petition was issued to both therespondents. On 14.09.2015 in CA No. 685 of 2015 this Court hadpassed the following orders:- “Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that as the name ofrespondent NO. 2-company was struck offfrom the list by the Registrar of Companies,its name may be deleted from the memo ofpartis as it is no more existing. Ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to carry outnecessary correction in the memo ofparties. ” Counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatrespondent No. 1 had already filed its reply in which it 1s averredin paragraph No. 11 that it has no objection if the name ofrespondent No. 2 Company is restored to the Register of Registrarof Companies. However, it has referred to Rule 94 of theCompanies(Court) Rule 1959 to contend that necessary ordersmay be passed by this Court by imposing some cost upon thepetitioner and be awarded to the Registrar of Companies. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the available record. Ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to carry outnecessary correction in the memo ofparties. ” Counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatrespondent No. 1 had already filed its reply in which it 1s averredin paragraph No. 11 that it has no objection if the name ofrespondent No. 2 Company is restored to the Register of Registrarof Companies. However, it has referred to Rule 94 of theCompanies(Court) Rule 1959 to contend that necessary ordersmay be passed by this Court by imposing some cost upon thepetitioner and be awarded to the Registrar of Companies. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the available record. section 560(6) of the Act, 1956 enables the petitioner-creditor to file an application for restoration of the name of thecompany which has been struck oif from the Register of Registrarof Companies if the dues of the said creditors has not been paid. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in Paragraph 11 of the reply filed by CP No. 131 of 2012 respondent No. 1, the present petition is hereby allowed. Name otf respondent No. 2 is ordered to be registered in the Register ofRegistrar of Companies. LI[th]March, 2016Shivan Kaushik [Rakesh Kumar Jain]judge