Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is the further case of the petitioner company that since the respondent No.3 was getting monthly remuneration, he would be treated as an employee of the company and by virtue of provisions of Section 141 (3)(i) read with Section 144 (b) of the Act of 2013, the respondent No.3 could not have been appointed as Statutory Auditor of the petitioner company. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 was also the Tax Consultant of the petitioner company for the financial year 2016-17, and had represented the company before Income Tax Authorities, in consideration of which he raised a bill of Rs.1,18,000/- on the petitioner company on 31.08.2020. It is further the case of the petitioner since the respondent No.3 was also acting as a Tax Consultant and representing the petitioner company before the Income Tax Department, there was a conflict of interest in two different positions he was holding for which he was also paid for. Since the respondent No.3 was not an independent person, which is a prerequisite to act as statutory auditor, the petitioner company filed an application before the Central Government (respondent No.2 Regional Director, North Western Region, Ahmadabad) under Section 140(1) of the Act of 2013 for removal of respondent No.3 from the post of Statutory Auditors of the company. The aforesaid application came to be rejected by the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order dated 03.09.2021(dispatched on 07.09.2021), solely on the ground that the statutory auditor cannot restrain himself from commenting on the financial of the company and the grounds raised by the petitioner in its application have not been considered on merits.