ROC Chennai Waives Penalty for Delay in Filing Annual Return:

ROC Chennai Waives Penalty for Delay in Filing Annual Return

ROC Chennai waives penalty for delayed annual return filing due to pre-notice compliance.

ROC Waives Penalty Citing Pre-Notice Compliance

authorVanshika vermadateMar 20, 2026
Last update on Mar 20, 2026
ROC Chennai Waives Penalty for Delay in Filing Annual Return The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai, did not impose any penalties on M/s Bellani Workforce Private Limited or its defaulting officers despite the delay in holding its Annual General Meeting (AGM).
ROC Gwalior Imposes Penalty for Non-Filing of Consolidated Financial Statements
Background of the case The company Bellani Workforce Private Limited, along with its directors, filed a suo motu application. The application was filed because the company violated Section 92(4) of the Act. The company explained that it held its Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the financial year 2023-2024 on December 31, 2024. However, it could not file its Annual Return (Form MGT-7A) within the required time limit. As per the law, the return must be filed within 60 days from the date of the AGM. The company eventually filed the return on June 04, 2025, but this was delayed by 95 days. The company also stated that it qualifies as a "small company" under Section 2(85) of the Companies Act, 2013. Because of this, it requested the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, to either reduce or completely waive the penalty. Since the company failed to file its annual return within 60 days of the AGM, it violated the law. Therefore, the company and its responsible officers are liable for penalties under Section 92(5) of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority issued a notice for e-adjudication. In response, the company stated that it had already filed the pending return on June 04, 2025, before the notice was issued. It requested that the matter be closed under Section 454(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Levies Zero Penalty on Company Despite Late Filing of Financial Statement: Know How
However, later during the e-hearing, the company’s authorised representative appeared and requested that the violation be considered minor and that no penalty should be imposed. The ROC noted that the company had already filed MGT-7A before the adjudicating officer issued the notice on February 2, 2026. Therefore, under Section 454(2), no penalty was imposed.

About Author

Vanshika verma

Content Writer

Vanshika Verma is a Content Writer with 1+ year of experience at Studycafe.in. A B.Com graduate from Delhi University, She writes articles on Finance, Tax, ICAI, GST, and the latest financial news, with a focus on making complex topics easy for readers and professionals.
Studycafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
1539
Up Next

Loading suggestions…