In a recent adjudication order, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) imposed a cumulative penalty of ₹6,000 on Private Limited company and its two directors for violating Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 that is failure to affix CIN number its letterhead or official publication for one day.
The violation pertained to the company’s failure to print its Corporate Identity Number (CIN) on an official publication specifically, the Board Report dated 27.08.2014 for the financial year 2013-14. This lapse, though lasting just one day, led to penal action by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi & Haryana.
The UAE Tax Law Is Evolving — Stay Ahead Before Clients Find Someone Who Already Is – Register Now
The inspection, conducted under Section 206 of the Act, found that the company’s Board Report submitted through e-Form 23AC and 23ACA had omitted the mandatory company particulars, including the CIN, in violation of the statutory requirement.
A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 23.02.2023. While one of the directors, Mahesh Chander, received the SCN, there was no response from the company or the other director, Isha Garg, within the stipulated time. However, a delayed response was received from the company on 06.06.2023, in which it admitted the lapse.
In its reply dated 06.06.2023, the company admitted violation of section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 for the days i.e. for one day 27.08.2024 is the date on which letter head without mentioning CIN etc. was used by the Company.
The Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies act states as follows:
“(c) get its name, address of its registered office and the Corporate Identity Number along with telephone number; fax number, if any, e-mail and website addresses, if any, printed in all its business letters, billheads, letter papers and in all its notices and other official publications; and”
The ROC, Considering that the company qualifies as a “small company” under Section 2(85) of the Companies Act, the penalty was reduced to 50% of the prescribed amount under Section 12(8), read with Section 446B. As a result, the company was fined ₹2,000, while each director Isha Garg and Mahesh Chander was fined ₹2,000, bringing the total penalty to ₹6,000.
The ROC directed the company and its officers to rectify the default immediately and complete the necessary compliance filings. Additionally, the order warned that non-payment of the penalty within 90 days may attract further action under Section 454(8) of the Act. The aggrieved parties have the option to appeal the order before the Regional Director (Northern Region) within 60 days of receiving the order.
Also read: Once Main Noticee Settles Under SVLDRS, Penalty on Co-Noticees Cannot Survive: CESTAT
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
