Due to economic slowdown and other factors, company faced financial difficulties and was unable to repay its creditors.  As a result, High Court issued an order of winding up of company dated 8-9-2015.  Subsequently, assessment was reopened and demand was raised. Complaint was  filed for offence under section 276C(2) and 278B.   Before the Court it was submitted that once a winding up order was passed or a provisional liquidator was appointed, no legal proceedings could be initiated against company without permission of Tribunal and as a result of winding up order, all directors of company (under liquidation) ceased to be directors, and they were not authorized to take any actions on behalf of company. It was also  argued that since company was under custody of official liquidator, they had no liability or responsibility regarding company’s affairs, and therefore, proceedings against them should be quashed. Court held that considering fact that official liquidator was a necessary party, since it was now in charge of affairs of company under liquidation, petitioners’ request for discharge was to be considered by trial court after adding official liquidator as a party to case.