First auditor appointment-adt-1
This query is : Open
24 November 2014
Is it MANDATORY to file ADT-1 in GNL-2 for appointment of First Auditor under the Companies Act,2013 ?
24 November 2014
it is not mandatory to file ADT-1 for appointment of first auditor
28 March 2015
Does appointment of 1st auditor require obtaining written consent, certificate and filing of form ADT-1 ?
The appointment of first auditor is governed through section 139(6) which starts with a non-obstante clause [notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)] and it is sub-section (1) which requires obtaining consent & certificate from auditor and filing of form ADT-1 with ROC.
Interpretation of “notwithstanding anything contained….”:- As per Supreme court, the non-obstante clause is used to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. In case any departure between non-obstante clause and other provisions, no-obstante clause will prevail.
Since section 139(6) does not speak anything contrary to section 139(1) as far as obtaining of consent, certificate and filing of form is concerned therefore in can be interpreted that ADT-1 should be filed with ROC for first auditor also.
Further if you think that form is to be filed only under 139(1), then why there is reference of "Casual Vacancy" in the e-form ADT1 itself when it falls under 139(8)?
How ROC will come to know that appointment is under maximum allowed limit for an Auditor?
Thus, as per my view, Form should be filed whenever Auditor is appointed whether in BM or Share Holders' Meeting.
Thanks & Regards,
CS Durgesh Soni
The appointment of first auditor is governed through section 139(6) which starts with a non-obstante clause [notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)] and it is sub-section (1) which requires obtaining consent & certificate from auditor and filing of form ADT-1 with ROC.
Interpretation of “notwithstanding anything contained….”:- As per Supreme court, the non-obstante clause is used to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. In case any departure between non-obstante clause and other provisions, no-obstante clause will prevail.
Since section 139(6) does not speak anything contrary to section 139(1) as far as obtaining of consent, certificate and filing of form is concerned therefore in can be interpreted that ADT-1 should be filed with ROC for first auditor also.
Further if you think that form is to be filed only under 139(1), then why there is reference of "Casual Vacancy" in the e-form ADT1 itself when it falls under 139(8)?
How ROC will come to know that appointment is under maximum allowed limit for an Auditor?
Thus, as per my view, Form should be filed whenever Auditor is appointed whether in BM or Share Holders' Meeting.
Thanks & Regards,
CS Durgesh Soni
Message likes :
1 times
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Is Aadhar PAN linking required for opening bank account?
- Applicability
- CPC Processing IT Return for AY 2023-24 without recognizing the Taxation Option under New Regime
- Where to show the RCM on Rent paid to unregistered landlord
- RCM - commercial rent paid to URP under GST
- TDS NUMBER SURRENDER
- GSTR-3B - Do I file nil when there is no sale but I've bought raw materials
- Legal heir raised refund , but refund issued to the closed account of deceased.
- Gst Sales of FY 2023-24
- Offsetting interest income against derivative trading losses
- My Last working day in current org is in novemebr 2024 but they are asking me to submit IT proof
- Indexation benefit applicability
- SEC 54 OF IT ACT
- Passed group 2 exams under wrong gender
- REQUIREMENT OF 15CB
- QUERY FOR RCM ON RENT
- APPEAL-CIT
- Payable outstanding for years disallowance
- Whether still royalty
- Issue of gst e invoice
Trending Online Classes
-
Excel Mastery Program
CA Rishabh Pugalia
CAclubindia
