JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. M. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 463 read with 454 of the Companies Act, 2013 making a prayer under Section 403 read with Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013 to absolve the petitioner company from payment of the additional fee for the purpose of submitting its returns with effect from 2007. The prayer of the petitioner is based on the observations made by this Court in an earlier order dated 30/03/2015 passed in Company Petition No. 14/2014. 3. The name of the petitioner M/s. Numen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was struck off from the records of the Registrar of Companies on 20/01/2012 on the ground of successive default in filing the statutory returns. Having learnt about the aforesaid order of Registrar of Companies (for short RoC), the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, registered and numbered as Co. Pet. No. 14/2014, inter-alia contending that the procedure followed by the RoC for striking off the name of the company was illegal. Taking note of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for both parties, this Court had disposed of the Company Petition No. 14/2014 by the order dated 30/03/2015 with the following observations and directions :- “Under sub-section (2) of Section 560, a registered notice is envisaged before striking off the name of even a defunct company and in this case, nothing is produced by the respondent to show that any registered notice was served upon the company, before their name was struck off. Therefore taking all facts and circumstances into account, the restoration of M/s Numen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is held to be justified and the same is ordered subject to following conditions:- (i) The petitioner company should file within 30 days all their statutory returns since 31.03.2007 onwards with the prescribed fee under Section 403(2) and Schedule-X of the Companies Act, 2013 with the e-Registry of the respondent. (ii) The petitioner should also pay restoration cost of Rs.25,000/- for their negligence in filing their statutory returns. With the above direction, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated.” 4. In compliance with the direction no. (ii) The petitioner should also pay restoration cost of Rs.25,000/- for their negligence in filing their statutory returns. With the above direction, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated.” 4. In compliance with the direction no. (ii) in the order dated 30/03/2015, the petitioner company had deposited the sum of Rs. 25,000/-as cost, on 06/05/2015, pursuant whereto, the website of the company was activated. Thereafter, the petitioner had apparently logged into the website in an attempt to file the returns from the year 2007 and the challans were accordingly generated for payment of the fee of Rs. 600/-per document. In addition to that, the respective challans had also demanded 12 times of the normal fee amounting to Rs. 7200/-as additional fee, thereby requiring the petitioner company to deposit a sum of Rs. 7800/-in total, per return. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 5. Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 30/03/2015 to contend that in view of the specific direction issued by this Court, the respondent could not have demanded any amount from the petitioner beyond the prescribed fee which according to the learned counsel was Rs. 600/-per return. As such, Ms. Jain submits that the additional fee amounting to Rs. 7200/-per return demanded by the respondent is nothing but a penalty within the meaning of Sec. 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Companies Act, 2013’).Since the respondent is duty bound to issue prior notice before any penalty is imposed upon the company, the demand of additional fee, according to Ms. Jain is dehors the law and therefore, is liable to be set aside by this Court. 6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that by demanding the additional fee of Rs. 7200/-per return, the respondents have not only acted in clear contravention of the directions issued by this Court by order dated 30/03/2015 but have also taken a different stand in the case of the petitioner from that which was projected in the case of Pashupati Creameries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Registrar of Companiesin MC 1216/2015 arising out of Co. Pet. 15/2014, whereby this Court had passed order dated 15/05/2015 directing that the additional fee deposited by the similarly situated applicants be refunded. The Registrar of Companiesin MC 1216/2015 arising out of Co. Pet. 15/2014, whereby this Court had passed order dated 15/05/2015 directing that the additional fee deposited by the similarly situated applicants be refunded. The learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that a direction similar to one issued by this Court on 15/05/2015 in connection with MC1216/2015 be also issued in this case as the facts are identical in both the cases. 7. Refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI submits that the returns are nowadays submitted through the e-portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India and as per the requirement of the software, no return will be accepted unless the same is accompanied by prescribed fee which includes the additional fee. Mr. Keyal submits that this Court had never directed the authorities to waive the prescribed fee in case of the petitioner and in view of the specific language in Section 403 of the Act of 2013, additional fee would also come within the definition of “prescribed fee” as mentioned in the Act of 2013. Mr. Keyal further also submitted that no penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner company till date and, therefore, the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that this is a case of imposition of penalty without service of proper notice is completely unfounded. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 9. As noted above, by order dated 30/03/2015 this Court had directed that the name of the petitioner company be restored back subject to the conditions specified therein. It is a fact that the petitioner company has complied with the condition no. (ii) mentioned in the order dated 30/03/2015 but according to the petitioner, the demand of additional fee is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The moot question that would, therefore, arise for decision in the present proceeding is whether the petitioner is required to pay the additional fee of Rs. 7200/-per return as required by the e-portal of the Ministry. To answer the said question, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 for ready reference : “403. 10. The moot question that would, therefore, arise for decision in the present proceeding is whether the petitioner is required to pay the additional fee of Rs. 7200/-per return as required by the e-portal of the Ministry. To answer the said question, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 for ready reference : “403. Fee or filing, etc - (1) Any document, required to be submitted, filed, registered or recorded, or any fact or information required or authorised to be registered under this Act, shall be submitted, filed, registered or recorded within the time specified in the relevant provision on payment of such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that any document, fact or information may be submitted, filed, registered or recorded, after the time specified in relevant provision for such submission, filing, registered or recording, within a period of two hundred and seventy days from the date by which it should have been submitted, filed, registered or recorded, as the case may be, on payment of such additional fee as may be prescribed ; Provided further that any such document, fact or information may, without prejudice to any other legal action or liability under the Act, be also submitted, filed, registered or recorded, after the first time specified in first proviso on payment of fee and additional fee specified under this section. (2) Where a company fails or commits any default to submit, file, register or record any document, fact or information under sub-section (1) before the expiry of the period specified in the first proviso to that sub-section with additional fee, the company and the officers of the company who are in default, shall, without prejudice to the liability for payment of fee and additional fee, be liable for the penalty or punishment provided under this Act for such failure or default.” 11. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions would leave no room for doubt that every document which is required to be submitted or filed under the Act would have to be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. That apart, second proviso of section 403 makes it clear that over and above the additional fee, it would be open for the authorities to impose penalty or such punishment as may be provided under the Act in case of default made by a party. 12. That apart, second proviso of section 403 makes it clear that over and above the additional fee, it would be open for the authorities to impose penalty or such punishment as may be provided under the Act in case of default made by a party. 12. The petitioner has also brought on record a copy of the notification issued by the Ministry under Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 which was published in the gazette of India (Extraordinary) whereby, under paragraph ‘B’, the table of additional fee as applicable for delay in filing of the forms other than the increased nominal share capital have been prescribed. According to the aforesaid table, any return that may be filed beyond 270 days would attract fee and additional fee as per the second proviso to Subsection 1 of Section 403 of the Act of 2013. 13. A conjoint reading of the notification issued under Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013, along with relevant provisions of the Act of 2013 leaves no room for doubt that if there is delay in filing any return/form of document with the RoC, the applicant/ defaulter would be required to make payment of fee and additional fee as specified under the section. 14. Coming to the facts of this case, a perusal of the order dated 30/03/2015 makes it amply evident that the learned Single Judge did not issue any direction up on the respondent to waive the fee or additional fee in case of the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner was asked to file all statutory returns since 31/03/2007 onwards along with the prescribed fee under Section 403(2) and Schedule X of the Companies Act. The said direction would obviously, mean that the petitioner would be required to pay fee and additional fee as prescribed under the said sub-section. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the submission of Ms. Jain that the demand of additional fee in the website of the Ministry was in contravention of the order dated 30/03/2015 passed by this Court. 15. Coming to the question of applying uniform standard in case of the petitioner as laid down in the order dated 15/05/2015 passed by this Court, it is to be noted herein that in the aforesaid order, by the order dated 06/04/2015 this Court had directed restoration of the applicant company without realizing the additional fee from it. 15. Coming to the question of applying uniform standard in case of the petitioner as laid down in the order dated 15/05/2015 passed by this Court, it is to be noted herein that in the aforesaid order, by the order dated 06/04/2015 this Court had directed restoration of the applicant company without realizing the additional fee from it. It was in such facts situation that the applicant company had again approached this Court by filing MC 1216/2015 when the “additional fee” was demanded through the web portal. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had directed the applicant therein to deposit the additional fee and claim refund of the same from the authorities, which claim was also allowed by the respondent. In the present case, there is no such order passed by this Court for restoring the company without realizing the additional fee. As such, the order dated 15/05/2015 relied upon by Ms. Jain would of no assistance to her in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the company petition. The company petition is, therefore, dismissed. Notwithstanding the order, it is made clear that the petitioner company would be at liberty to avail such other legal remedy as may be permissible under the law, in case any further penal action is initiated against it under Section 403 read with Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013. There would be no order as to costs.