ROC Levies Penalty on Company for Non-filing of MGT-7:

ROC imposes penalty on company and officers for non-filing of MGT-7 annual return for FY 2019-20 under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Company Fined for Failure to File Annual Return

ROC Levies Penalty on Company for Non-filing of MGT-7
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) has levied a penalty on a company called Lokvikas Benefit Nidhi Limited and its officers for non-compliance with the filing of the Annual Return in Form MGT-7 for the FY ended 31st March 2020.
According to the provision of Section 92 (4) of the Companies Act, 2013, filing of Form MGT-7 Annual Return is mandatory.
The issue was brought to the notice of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) during an investigation initiated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The investigation was initiated through a letter dated April 10, 2020, by the Serious Investigation and Compliance authorities to order an investigation under section 206(4) of the Companies Act.
During the inquiry, the Enquiring Officer observed that the company has not filed the Annual Return for FY 2019-20, which amounts to an offence under section 92 (4) and is punishable under section 92 (5) of the Act. Enquiring Officer submitted his report on April 29, 2022. The Directorate General of Corporate Affairs (DGCoA) and Regional Director (Northern Region) ordered further action against the company and its officers in default.
It was further observed that the company had filed Annual Returns for all the other financial years except the year ended 31st March 2020. But the company did not regularise the default under the applicable compliance schemes.
A Show Cause Notice has been issued to the company and its officers for non-filing of the Annual Return. The hearings were fixed for 13th May 2026 and 21st May 2026. However, the company and its officers did not appear before the authority or submit the required documents.
As the company failed to respond or rectify the default, ROC imposed a penalty of Rs 1,76,200 on the company and Rs 50,000 each on the officer in default.
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.
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
1641My Recent Articles
- ITAT Pune Sends Tax Dispute Back to CIT(A) Over Rule 46A ViolationPremium
- ITAT Sets Aside Ex Parte Rejection of Section 12A and 80G Applications, Orders Fresh HearingPremium
- ITAT Cancels Rs 9.27 Lakh Penalty, Directs Tax Department to Grant Immunity to AssesseePremium
- ITAT Sends Cooperative Society’s Section 80P Interest Claim Back to AO for Fresh ExaminationPremium
- ITAT Remands Rs 38.98 Crore Unexplained Cash Deposit Dispute to AO for Fresh VerificationPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








