Change in Address of Registered Company must be Communicated to concerned ROC: MCA [Read Order]
In determining the fine, the ROC acknowledged that the entity qualified as a "small company" under Section 2(85) of the Act and imposed a reduced penalty.
![Change in Address of Registered Company must be Communicated to concerned ROC: MCA [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/02/2131365-change-in-address-of-registered-company-must-be-communicated-to-concerned-roc-mca-site-imagejpg.webp "Change in Address of Registered Company must be Communicated to concerned ROC: MCA [Read Order]")
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has reaffirmed that all companies must maintain a functional registered office and report any address changes. In an order against Norte Technologies India Private Limited, the ROC held that failing to communicate the registered address is a violation of the Companies Act, 2013. The proceedings were initiated under Section454 of the Act following...
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has reaffirmed that all companies must maintain a functional registered office and report any address changes.
In an order against Norte Technologies India Private Limited, the ROC held that failing to communicate the registered address is a violation of the Companies Act, 2013.
The proceedings were initiated under Section454 of the Act following a breach of Section 12(8). This provision mandates that a company must have a registered office capable of receiving official communications and must notify the Registrar of any relocation.
After physical verification, the ROC discovered that the company was not operating from its recorded address and had neglected to file the necessary intimations regarding its actual location.
During the inquiry, the company submitted that it had been non-operational since July 2018. However, the ROC rejected this argument, stating that the lack of business activity does not exempt a company from its statutory obligations.
The authorities determined that the failure to maintain an office and update records constituted an ongoing default that had persisted since the company halted operations.
The authority also noted that despite being served with show-cause notices and offered an e-hearing, neither the company nor its directors participated in the process. Because they failed to file a response through the e-adjudication module, the ROC proceeded to issue an ex-parte order.
In determining the fine, the ROC acknowledged that the entity qualified as a "small company" under Section 2(85) of the Act. This classification allowed the authority to apply Section 446B, which provides for reduced penalties.
Therefore, a penalty of ₹50,000 was imposed on the company and each of its two directors, staying within the maximum limits prescribed by law for smaller enterprises.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
