ROC Waives Penalty in Annual Return Filing Default Case Citing Voluntary Compliance:

ROC Chennai waived penalty for delayed annual return filing after the company voluntarily disclosed and rectified the default before official notice.
ROC Grants Full Relief in Annual Return Filing Delay Case

ROC Waives Penalty in Annual Return Filing Default Case Citing Voluntary Compliance
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Chennai has taken legal action against Net Carbon Vision Private Limited and its directors for non-compliance with Section 92(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The action has been taken through an order of adjudication dated March 11, 2026.
On April 27, 2025, the disputed company and its directors had filed the e-form GNL-1, along with a physical copy of the voluntarily filed adjudication application under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, accepting the non-compliance committed by them under Section 92(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The provision of Section 92(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, mandates a company to furnish a copy of the annual return with the Registrar within the period of 60 days from the date on which the annual general meeting was held. In the present case, the annual general meeting of the company was held on April 04, 2025; however, the company furnished its annual return on May 12, 2025, which is clearly beyond the allowed time limit. This concluded in the contravention of the said section; hence, the company became liable for penal action under Section 92(5).
During the proceedings, the company explained that the delay was unintentional and requested relief. When the case was reviewed, the adjudicating officer noted that the company had already corrected the default before the issuance of any official notice and also informed about the same voluntarily. Therefore, considering the same, the authority decided not to impose any penalty on the company or its directors under Section 454(2) of the Act. But the company has still been directed to rectify any applicable compliance or procedural requirements within 90 days 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
2485My Recent Articles
- Trust’s Sections 12AB and 80G Registration Cannot Be Denied Before Charitable Project Is Completed, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Says Identity and Creditworthiness Irrelevant Where Loan Was Directly Paid to Haryana Mining DepartmentPremium
- Earlier Rejection Cannot Be Sole Ground to Reject Fresh Section 12AB and 80G Registration Applications, Says ITATPremium
- Cash Deposited During Demonetisation Cannot Be Taxed Under Section 69A if Linked to Business, Holds ITAT Premium
- ITAT Condones 1,731-Day Delay, Remands Cancer Trust's Section 12A Registration Application for Fresh ConsiderationPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








