Is MGT 7 mandatory to file within 60 days of AGM?

Is MGT 7 mandatory to file within 60 days of AGM?. If any company has failed to file its annual return within the prescribed time period such company and its officers who is in default shall be liable to penalty of fifty thousand rupees and in case of continuing failure, with a further penalty of 100 rupees for each day after the first during which such failure continues, subject to a maximum of five  lakh rupees. 
As per section 92 of the companies Act every company must prepare an annual return with key details about its business as of the financial year's end. This includes information about its registered office, business activities, ownership structure, shareholding pattern, directors, key personnel, meetings, penalties, and compliance details.
For listed companies and those meeting certain financial criteria, a company secretary in practice must certify the return. Companies must also upload it on their website, if they have one.
The annual return must be filed with the Registrar within 60 days of the Annual General Meeting (AGM). If a company fails to file it on time, penalties apply, increasing daily until a maximum limit is reached. A company secretary who wrongly certifies the return may also face penalties.
Special provisions apply to One Person Companies, small companies, and startups, allowing for an abridged version and different signing requirements
Applicable Provisions
The MCA adjudication order involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the adjudication of penalties. The relevant rules include the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (WR), Mumbai, for consideration.
Facts of the Case with ROC and RD
In Lokasa Handicraft Jewellery Exports Limited & ORS, ROC vide adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 held that the company and its directors who have defaulted liable for penalty under section 92(5)) of the Act from 30/11/2019 to 18/10/2020 for not filling Annual Return within 60 days from the date of Annual General Meeting in pursuance of Section 96 of the Act.
Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, Registrar of Companies (ROC) imposed penalties for non-compliance, leading the company to file an appeal before the Regional Director (RD) and an opportunity of being heard was given by the RD to appellants on 04/06/2024. The authorised representative has admitted the contravention of section 92 of the Act. Further stated that the:

They did not find any defect in ROC Adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 but have applied on ground of bad financial position of the company.

ROC further stated via letter dated 03/06/2024 concluded that the ground of appeal relied by the appellants in their submissions are not tenable.
Imposed Penalty
Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty as follows:

Relevant Periods

To whom penalty imposed

First Default

Default Continues

Total Penalty Levied

Maximum Penalty

324 days

On Company

50,000

324*100=32,400

82,400

5,00,000

On 1st director

50,000

324*100=32,400

82,400

5,00,000

On 2nd director

50,000

324*100=32,400

82,400

5,00,000

On 3rd director

50,000

324*100=32,400

82,400

5,00,000

Reduction in Penalties, If any
Taking into account the adjudication order of the ROC, submission made by the appellant in their application as well as oral submissions of the authorised representative during the hearing and further letter of the concerned ROC and oral submission of the authorised representative during the hearing, it is observed that:

There is no inherent defect in the adjudication order dated 26/12/2023

ROC, Mumbai has imposed penalty as per Section 92(5) of the companies Act 2013.

Any Benefit of Section 446B of Companies Act
Section 446B of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a significant relief mechanism for small companies and start-ups by reducing the penalty burden for certain non-compliances. Under this provision, if a small company or a start-up commits a default for which a penalty is prescribed under the Act, the penalty imposed shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In adjudication matter of Lokasa Handicraft Jewellery Exports Limited & ORS, being a public company do not qualify to claim the benefit of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.
To conclude:
From the above case, it is apparent that Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS failed to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013, leading to adjudication by the Registrar of Companies (ROC). After getting order from the concerned ROC, an appeal filled by the company to claiming various points just not fair on the grounds of ROC order. Though after considering all the facts and submissions made by the company, RD dismissed the appeal as there was no merit in the same.
Download MCA Adjudication Order

If any company has failed to file its annual return within the prescribed time period such company and its officers who is in default shall be liable to penalty of fifty thousand rupees and in case of continuing failure, with a further penalty of 100 rupees for each day after the first during which such failure continues, subject to a maximum of five lakh rupees.

As per section 92 of the companies Act every company must prepare an annual return with key details about its business as of the financial year's end. This includes information about its registered office, business activities, ownership structure, shareholding pattern, directors, key personnel, meetings, penalties, and compliance details.

For listed companies and those meeting certain financial criteria, a company secretary in practice must certify the return. Companies must also upload it on their website, if they have one.

The annual return must be filed with the Registrar within 60 days of the Annual General Meeting (AGM). If a company fails to file it on time, penalties apply, increasing daily until a maximum limit is reached. A company secretary who wrongly certifies the return may also face penalties.

Special provisions apply to One Person Companies, small companies, and startups, allowing for an abridged version and different signing requirements

Applicable Provisions

The MCA adjudication order involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the adjudication of penalties. The relevant rules include the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (WR), Mumbai, for consideration.

Facts of the Case with ROC and RD

In Lokasa Handicraft Jewellery Exports Limited & ORS, ROC vide adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 held that the company and its directors who have defaulted liable for penalty under section 92(5)) of the Act from 30/11/2019 to 18/10/2020 for not filling Annual Return within 60 days from the date of Annual General Meeting in pursuance of Section 96 of the Act.

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, Registrar of Companies (ROC) imposed penalties for non-compliance, leading the company to file an appeal before the Regional Director (RD) and an opportunity of being heard was given by the RD to appellants on 04/06/2024. The authorised representative has admitted the contravention of section 92 of the Act. Further stated that the:

They did not find any defect in ROC Adjudication order dated 05/12/2023 but have applied on ground of bad financial position of the company.

ROC further stated via letter dated 03/06/2024 concluded that the ground of appeal relied by the appellants in their submissions are not tenable.

Imposed Penalty

Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty as follows:

Relevant Periods	To whom penalty imposed	First Default	Default Continues	Total Penalty Levied	Maximum Penalty
324 days	On Company	50,000	324*100=32,400	82,400	5,00,000
	On 1st director	50,000	324*100=32,400	82,400	5,00,000
	On 2nd director	50,000	324*100=32,400	82,400	5,00,000
	On 3rd director	50,000	324*100=32,400	82,400	5,00,000

Reduction in Penalties, If any

Taking into account the adjudication order of the ROC, submission made by the appellant in their application as well as oral submissions of the authorised representative during the hearing and further letter of the concerned ROC and oral submission of the authorised representative during the hearing, it is observed that:

There is no inherent defect in the adjudication order dated 26/12/2023
ROC, Mumbai has imposed penalty as per Section 92(5) of the companies Act 2013.

Any Benefit of Section 446B of Companies Act

Section 446B of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a significant relief mechanism for small companies and start-ups by reducing the penalty burden for certain non-compliances. Under this provision, if a small company or a start-up commits a default for which a penalty is prescribed under the Act, the penalty imposed shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In adjudication matter of Lokasa Handicraft Jewellery Exports Limited & ORS, being a public company do not qualify to claim the benefit of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.

To conclude:

From the above case, it is apparent that Lokasa Handicraft Jewellary Exports Limited & ORS failed to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013, leading to adjudication by the Registrar of Companies (ROC). After getting order from the concerned ROC, an appeal filled by the company to claiming various points just not fair on the grounds of ROC order. Though after considering all the facts and submissions made by the company, RD dismissed the appeal as there was no merit in the same.