Violation of Section 12 of the Companies Act 2013- CIN is missing

Violation of Section 12 of the Companies Act 2013- CIN is missing . In this article, we will take you through the mandatory Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every company must have its name, address of its registered office, Corporate Identity Number (CIN), along with telephone number, fax number (if any), email, and website addresses (if any) printed on all business letters, billheads, letter papers, notices, and other official publications. This ensures transparency and proper identification of the company in all official communications as demonstrated in the case of Mata Globals Logitics Pvt Ltd. 
Applicable Provisions
The case involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the MCA adjudication of penalties. The relevant rules include the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (ER), Kolkata, for consideration.
Facts of the Case with ROC and RD
In Mata Globals Logitics Pvt Ltd, concerned ROC had issued adjudication notice dated 21.11.2022 for violation of section 12 of the Act to the company and its officers. In this regard, reply was received from the company and its officers for aforesaid adjudication notice on 04.01.2023. 
Reply received by the ROC Patna on the behalf of the company and its officers in default for the adjudication notice was not found satisfactory. 
The 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 05/07/2024. 
• The authorised representative was asked to make submissions regarding the infirmity if any in the order of Registrar of Companies. The authorised representative had no valid submission in this regard. 
• Hence, the order of ROC is confirmed as no cogent ground was made out by the authorised representative. 
Imposed Penalty
The ROC after considering the fact and circumstances of the case levied penalties. The penalty amount was determined based on the failure to comply with the relevant legal requirements. Though concerned ROC impose penalty after considering the company as a small company as per the relevant section and provision of the companies Act 2013. Thus, under section 446B details of the penalty, are as follows: -
On Company: Rs. 22,500
On officer in default: Rs. 22,500 each
Reduction in Penalty
Upon hearing the appeal, the RD reviewed the circumstances and the submission made by the authorised representative with respect to the non-compliance and did not find any merit in their submission thus confirm the order of ROC. Further RD directed the company and officers in default shall pay the amount of penalty from out of their own pockets. The amount of penalty shall be paid within a period of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Further, if the company and its directors fail to deposit the penalty amount within the prescribed time limit under section 454 (8) (i) and (ii) 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 the adjudication matter of Mata Globals Logitics Pvt Ltd company being a small company claim the benefit of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.
Summary:
In conclusion, the appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, was carefully examined by the Regional Director, considering the submission made by the appellant authority and the circumstances surrounding its non-compliance with Section 12 and confirm the order of ROC. This case signifies the importances of strict adherence to corporate compliance requirements while also recognizing the need for a balanced approach in adjudicating penalties, considering the financial and operational realities of the company.
Download MCA Adjudication Order:

In this article, we will take you through the mandatory Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every company must have its name, address of its registered office, Corporate Identity Number (CIN), along with telephone number, fax number (if any), email, and website addresses (if any) printed on all business letters, billheads, letter papers, notices, and other official publications. This ensures transparency and proper identification of the company in all official communications as demonstrated in the case of Mata Globals Logitics Pvt Ltd.

Applicable Provisions

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

Facts of the Case with ROC and RD

In Mata Globals Logitics Pvt Ltd, concerned ROC had issued adjudication notice dated 21.11.2022 for violation of section 12 of the Act to the company and its officers. In this regard, reply was received from the company and its officers for aforesaid adjudication notice on 04.01.2023.

Reply received by the ROC Patna on the behalf of the company and its officers in default for the adjudication notice was not found satisfactory.

The 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 05/07/2024.

• The authorised representative was asked to make submissions regarding the infirmity if any in the order of Registrar of Companies. The authorised representative had no valid submission in this regard.

• Hence, the order of ROC is confirmed as no cogent ground was made out by the authorised representative.

Imposed Penalty

The ROC after considering the fact and circumstances of the case levied penalties. The penalty amount was determined based on the failure to comply with the relevant legal requirements. Though concerned ROC impose penalty after considering the company as a small company as per the relevant section and provision of the companies Act 2013. Thus, under section 446B details of the penalty, are as follows: -

On Company: Rs. 22,500

On officer in default: Rs. 22,500 each

Reduction in Penalty

Upon hearing the appeal, the RD reviewed the circumstances and the submission made by the authorised representative with respect to the non-compliance and did not find any merit in their submission thus confirm the order of ROC. Further RD directed the company and officers in default shall pay the amount of penalty from out of their own pockets. The amount of penalty shall be paid within a period of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Further, if the company and its directors fail to deposit the penalty amount within the prescribed time limit under section 454 (8) (i) and (ii) 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 the adjudication matter of Mata Globals Logitics Pvt Ltd company being a small company claim the benefit of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.

Summary:

In conclusion, the appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, was carefully examined by the Regional Director, considering the submission made by the appellant authority and the circumstances surrounding its non-compliance with Section 12 and confirm the order of ROC. This case signifies the importances of strict adherence to corporate compliance requirements while also recognizing the need for a balanced approach in adjudicating penalties, considering the financial and operational realities of the company.