Company and Director Penalised for Non-Filing of One-Time Return in Form DPT-3:

The ROC Hyderabad imposed a Rs 20,000 penalty on the company and its director for failing to file the mandatory DPT-3 return within the prescribed time.
Company and Director Faces Rs 20,000 Penalty

Company and Director Penalised for Non-Filing of One-Time Return in Form DPT-3
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Hyderabad under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Government of India, has levied a penalty amounting to Rs 20,000 on the company, Digilogic Systems Limited, and its director, Madhusudhan Varma Jetty, for violating Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013.
In the present case, the company, Digilogic Systems Limited, had failed to furnish a one-time return in Form DPT-3 for reporting outstanding receipts of money or loans not considered as deposits for the period January 01, 2014, to March 31, 2019. The form was required to be filed within 90 days from March 31, 2019, as per the provisions of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013. Read Rule 16A(3) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014. However, the company failed.
The company admitted the mistake by voluntarily filing an application and asked for a bit of mercy. They claimed that the delay was not intentional but instead was due to an honest oversight, and also, the facility was not available on the MCA portal. Later, they sent in the needed return through Form GNL-2 on December 5, 2025, along with the DPT-3 information, and the ROC had accepted it.
During the proceedings of the case, the ROC sent the default company and director an e-show cause notice (SCN), asking them to appear for a hearing. In conclusion, the company's director appeared and accepted the default committed by them. When the ROC reviewed the case facts, it noted that the default company and director are liable for penal action. Hence, it was concluded to impose a penalty of Rs 10,000 on the company and of Rs 10,000 on its director.
They have been instructed to pay the imposed penalty amount and rectify the default within the time limit of 90 days from the date of receiving the order.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2701My Recent Articles
- ITAT Rejects Section 69A Unexplained Money Addition Based on Alleged Over-Invoicing Entry Found in Third-Party SearchPremium
- ITAT Condoned 336-Day Delay in Section 68 Case After Taxpayer Cites Lack Of Online Communication AwarenessPremium
- United Breweries Secures Full Relief from Bombay High Court in Rs 21.92 Crore Service Tax Dispute
- Aries Agro Faces Rs 3.96 Crore GST Demand Over ITC Availment from Retrospectively Cancelled Vendors
- ITAT Restores Appeal Over Rs 9.33 Crore Section 68 Share Application Addition After DTVSV Payment FailurePremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts








