FAQs ROC NOTICE U/S 248

Deepak Gupta | Jun 27, 2018 |

FAQs  ROC NOTICE U/S 248

FAQs ROC NOTICE U/S 248 :As PIB Report, during F.Y. 2017-18 ROCs identified and removed from the ROC the names of 2,26,166 companies; 3,09,619 directors disqualified. 2nd drive to be launched during the current financial year 2018-19; a total 2, 25,910 companies identified for being struck-off.

Many ROCs has issued notices in form STK-5 in the month of May and June, 2018 u/s 248(4) of Companies Act, 2013. Notice has been sent to those Companies, which according to ROC have not been carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years. The main thrust of this editorial is TO DISCUSS THE FAQS, FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR THE SAME
FAQs ROC NOTICE U/S 248
A. If Company doesnt reply ROC Notice what are the consequences of same
I. Whether ROC can strike off the status of Company
As per Notice of ROC u/s 248(1), this notice is first step toward struck off of Company. If Company fails to reply such notice within 30 days of publication of notice (i.e. 17th July, 2018 in case of publication of Delhi ROC) ROC shall struck off the name of Company in its records.
II. Whether Director shall be disqualified
As per Section 164(2) if a company fails to file its Financial Statement or Annual Return for continuous 3 financial years, in such case Directors shall be disqualified.
In this case, if Company has fails to file financial statement and annual return for continue 3 financial year then directors shall be disqualified, if default is only for 2 years then directors shall not be disqualified.
III. Personal Liability Director/ Manager/ Officer/ Members.
As per Section 248(&) The liability, if any, of every director, manager or other officer who was exercising any power of management, and of every member of the company dissolved under sub-section (5), shall continue and may be enforced if the company had not been dissolved
In general words, liability of Directors, manager, other officers and Members of the Company shall be continue even after struck off of Company.
Hence, one can opine that they shall be personally liable for all the statutory and other liabilities of the Company. (Eg. Statutory liability like: Payment of Roc Fees, payment of income tax liability, penalty for non filing of financial statements and annual returns etc.)
IV. Cessation of Bank Account of Company
If a Company struck off in the record of ROC. Then ROC simultaneously send letter to Banks for cessation of Bank account of Company in the entire Bank.
Earlier when roc struck off approx 2.5 lakh companies has taken the same action”
V. Companies shall not be able to carry on business, sale/ purchase any assets, bank transactions.
If a Company once struck off in the record of ROC, then such Company:

  • Cant conduct any business activity in the Company. Company cant carry on business. (i) Because due to cessation of Bank account they cant do any transactions. (ii) As Company struck off promoters cant sign any invoice or other documents on behalf of the Company.
  • If Company having any assets then Company cant sell / lease such property. Because Company cant accept any amount from such transaction due to cessation of Bank Account.

B. What shall be impact of disqualification of Director on other companies in which they are continuing as Directors
Detailed answer of this question has been already covered in the below mentioned article. (In simple word disqualified director automatically vacant office from all other companies)
Impact of Disqualification on directors- struck off companies
C. Everything about provision of Disqualification of Director
Detailed answer about disqualification of director covering section 164 and 167 can be read on the below mentioned link:

Disqualification of director- Struck off companies
D. Whether directors of the Company could be personally liable for non compliance like non filing of financial statement or annual return after strike off of Company
As per Section 166 Director have to adhere the duties mentioned in such section. He has to work in best interest of Company, employee, shareholders, community etc. If directors fail to file Annual forms as an officer in default they shall be liable for the penalties/ prosecution. In case company got struck off they shall be personally liable for such statutory liabilities.
E. Whether Company can be strike off without completion of annual filing.
As per section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, Registrar of Companies may strike off the name of companies on satisfying the conditions therein. As per Section 560, a company desirous of getting its name struck off has to apply to Registrar of companies in e-form 61. All pending statutory returns are required to be filed along with e-form 61.
In order to give an opportunity for fast track exit by a defunct company, for getting its name struck off from the register of companies the Ministry has decided to modify the existing route through e-form 61 and has prescribed the new Guidelines. The Guidelines for Fast Track Exit mode for defunct companies.
Therefore, from the above provisions it is clear that before 7th June, 2011 (FTE Scheme) if company desired to go for strike off it was mandatory to file all pending statutory returns (Annual Filing Form). But then w.e.f. 7th June, 2011 by FTE scheme a company can go for Fast Track Exit without completion of pending statutory returns, even a dormant company could apply for FTE as discussed in above question.
Latest Provisions: In the latest provisions of Section 248 and in respective rules language are same as was in section 560 of Companies Act, 1956. Section 248 states the provisions of strike off of the Company not for Fast Track Exit of the Company.
One can interpret that if a Company wants to apply for Strike off u/s 248 first it has to file all the pending statutory returns.
Difference between FTE Scheme, 2011 and Companies Strike Off u/s 248

S.No.ParticularsProvisions under FTE
Scheme
Provisions under Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 along with rules.
1Link for Circular/ RulesClick here to download the provisionsClick here to download the provisions
2Not Carrying Business & ActivityIs not carrying over any business activity or operation for last one year before making application under FTE.Is not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years
3Dormant CompanyAny defunct company identified as dormant by the MCA, may apply for getting its name strike offThere are no such Provisions in Section 248.
4Completion of Pending Statutory ReturnNot- required to file pending statutory returns before apply for Strike Off.Required to file pending statutory before apply for Strike Off.

(Author CS Divesh Goyal, GOYAL DIVESH & ASSOCIATES Company Secretary in Practice from Delhi and can be contacted at [email protected])
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of relevant provisions and as per the information existing at the time of the preparation. Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided, I assume no responsibility therefore.
Users of this information are expected to refer to the relevant existing provisions of applicable Laws. The user of the information agrees that the information is not a professional advice and is subject to change without notice. I assume no responsibility for the consequences of use of such information. IN NO EVENT SHALL I SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE INFORMATION.

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
UltraTech Cement slapped with Rs. 808.78 Cr Income Tax Demand GST: High Court upheld constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), asks government to address ITC issues of genuine purchasers Old vs New Tax Regime for Tax Year 2026-27 High court criticizes Income Tax Department for not releasing ITR Utilities despite 11 years of directions Fino Payments Bank CEO Rishi Gupta Gets Bail in GST Case, Bank Clarifies No Direct LinkView All Posts