Company penalised by ROC for Incorrect AOC-4 XBRL Filing
Company penalised by ROC for Incorrect AOC-4 XBRL Filing
The Registrar of Companies, Cuttack (ROC Cuttack), under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), issued an order to Maharaja Polyfab Limited. This order was given on 27 March 2026. This order has been passed under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, which deals with fixing a penalty.
In this case, action has been taken against the company under Section 450, which deals with punishment for general violations. This entire matter pertains to the company filing incorrect information in the AOC-4 XBRL e-form, which is linked to the company’s annual filing.
Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Tax Exemption, Grants One-Year Transition Relief to Reliance
The case originated when Maharaja Polyfab Limited filed the AOC-4 XBRL form for the financial year (FY) 2024-25. While filling out the form, the company made a mistake in which the date of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) was entered incorrectly. While the actual AGM was held on 25 September 2025, 30 September 2025 was written in the form. Later, the company itself acknowledged that a clerical or data entry error caused this mistake. To rectify this mistake, the company filed the GNL-1 form, requesting that the already filled AOC-4 XBRL form be declared defective so that a new form can be filed with the correct information.
The investigation revealed that the company had submitted the form with incorrect information, violating the rules. According to Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014, the responsibility for the correctness of the information given in any e-form and the documents attached with it lies with the authorised signatory of the company and the professional certifying it.
On this basis, the company and its concerned officers were held responsible, and a penalty was imposed on them under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013. The notice recipient himself chose the “No” option, which prevented the opportunity for an e-hearing during this period.
The company was fined Rs 10,000 as a penalty. Apart from this, a penalty of Rs 10,000 was also fixed on the concerned officer, Ganesh Sharma. No additional penalty was imposed in this case, but as per the rules, the maximum limit could have been Rs 200,000 for the company and Rs 50,000 for the officer. Finally, it was made clear in the order that the company and the concerned officers should correct this mistake and ensure complete compliance with the rules by depositing the penalty within 90 days of receiving the order.