QUESTION:  Thousands Of Strike Off Companies Got Active Suddenly By MCA. Is it a Technical Error or Something Else?

ANSWER:  As per my understanding and various articles read it does not seem to be a technical error.

The income-tax (CBDT) department is estimating tax recovery of over Rupees 100 billion from companies that have been struck off from records of the Registrar of Companies last year. The CBDT wants to revive these companies so that it can collect outstanding taxes from them.

The MCA has suddenly revived all the strike off companies without any prior notice which has led a lot of muddle among professionals and other stakeholders.

However is there is a statutory requirement for the companies to be revived so that tax claims can be made on them?

Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 talk about Power of ROC to strike off the name of company. This Sections explains that all the dues and other liabilities can still be recovered from company’s assets even after removal of company.[248(6)]

Also, the liability of Director Managers or other officers along with members shall continue to be in place even after removal of its name. [248(7)]

NOTE: There is still no official notification or clarification by MCA in this regard.

Author Bio

Qualification: CS
Company: Practicing Company Secretary
Location: DELHI, New Delhi, IN
Member Since: 27 Jun 2019 | Total Posts: 11
A company Secretary in whole time practice View Full Profile

My Published Posts

More Under Company Law

4 Comments

  1. vswami says:

    “However is there is a statutory requirement for the companies to be revived so that tax claims can be made on them?”
    This ‘Q’ will assume relevance, in case the ROC has not followed the procedure as mandated by sub-sec (6) !
    OVER TO >>>

  2. vswami says:

    OFFHAND

    “….The CBDT wants to revive these companies so that it can collect outstanding taxes from them….”

    Read through, not half-way, the entire section 248 of relevance; partcularly, sub-sec-s. (6) and (7). The intirguing instant doubts, of a serious nature which arise are:
    A) whether or not the ROC HAS FLLOWED THE MADATE OF sub-sec (6) , before removal of the names of the companies from his Register ; and
    B) in case the ROC has, in fact, so followed, is it then the CBDT that has failed to first refer to him,; but instead, sought to ‘revive those companies’ ??

    The author of the write-up , a practising CS, at least on his part , could have spared time, in his own intererst, to look through what the law provides; instead of bluntly appending a – “NOTE: There is still no official notification or clarification by MCA in this regard.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

November 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30