M/S.Boppana Oils Limited (In Liqn.) vs. Nil

Facts

The Official Liquidator, attached to the High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, filed a Company Application under Section 462 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rules 298 and 306 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The application sought to take on record the half-yearly accounts of M/s. Boppana Oils Limited (in liquidation) for the period from 01.04.2024 to 30.09.2024, along with the Independent Auditors' Report dated 12.01.2026. The Official Liquidator also prayed for permission to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors, M/s. KBS and Associates, and to meet the costs of the application from the company's funds or the Estate and Establishment Fund, subject to reimbursement. The application was supported by an affidavit filed by the Official Liquidator.

Held

The Court held that the application was to be allowed. Specifically, the half-yearly accounts of M/s. Boppana Oils Limited (in liquidation) for the period from 01.04.2024 to 30.09.2024, along with the Independent Auditors' Report dated 12.01.2026, were taken on record. Permission was accorded to the Official Liquidator to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditor. Furthermore, permission was granted to the Official Liquidator to make this payment from the available funds of the company in liquidation, or from the Estate and Establishment Fund account if no funds were available in the company's account, subject to reimbursement from the company's funds upon realization of its assets. The Court found the reasons stated in the affidavit to be sufficient and considered the filed accounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the half-yearly accounts of the company in liquidation for the period 01.04.2024 to 30.09.2024, along with the Independent Auditors' Report dated 12.01.2026, should be taken on record. 2. Whether permission should be granted to the Official Liquidator to pay an audit fee of Rs. 500/- plus GST to the auditors. 3. Whether the Official Liquidator should be permitted to meet the costs of the application from the available funds of the company or the Estate and Establishment Fund, subject to reimbursement. The petitioner, the Official Liquidator, argued that the application was filed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act and Rules, and that the accounts and report were in order. The revenue or State did not appear to have filed any counter or presented any arguments, as the judgment states that the Court heard the counsel for the Official Liquidator and perused the affidavit. No specific provisions of the GST Act were contested or relied upon by either party, as the primary focus was on the Companies Act and Rules.