GST Registration for a Private Limited Company — Rule 14A Fast-Track vs Normal Registration: Which Should You Choose?

GST Registration · Private Limited Company Rule 14A · Effective 1 Nov 2025 Updated June 2026

GST Registration for a Private Limited Company — Rule 14A Fast-Track vs Normal Registration: Which Should You Choose?

No incorporation portal asks you this question at the time of GST registration — yet the answer determines whether your registration takes 3 days or up to 30, and whether you will need to file Form GST REG-32 later. Here is the choice explained properly, with the legal basis, before you click “Yes” or “No” on the GST portal.

Rule 14A CGST Rules Form GST REG-32 Aadhaar Authentication Physical Verification Section 25(6C) Pune & PCMC

Somewhere in Part B of Form GST REG-01, every applicant encounters a field that most incorporation portals do not explain: “Option for registration under Rule 14A — Yes / No.”

Founders click through this field without understanding what it means, because no online registration platform pauses to explain the choice or its consequences. Yet this single selection determines whether your GST registration is granted in 3 working days or takes the standard 7 to 30 days, whether your application is Aadhaar-authenticated or subject to physical site verification, and — for companies whose monthly B2B billing grows beyond a certain point — whether you will later need to file Form GST REG-32 to exit a scheme you may not have realised you opted into.

This article explains Rule 14A registration, normal registration, who should choose which, why the choice matters more for a Private Limited Company than it might first appear, and what Form GST REG-32 is for. If you have not yet registered for GST, read our complete GST registration guide alongside this article.

The fastest registration is not always the right one. The right registration is the one that matches what your company will actually look like in twelve months, not what it looks like on day one.

What Is Rule 14A — In Plain Terms

Rule 14A of the CGST Rules, 2017 was introduced through the Central Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2025, notified vide Notification No. 18/2025-Central Tax, and became effective from 1st November 2025. It introduces an optional, fast-track registration pathway for small taxpayers.

The core eligibility condition under Rule 14A is straightforward: an applicant may opt for registration under this Rule if their total monthly output tax liability on supplies made to registered persons (B2B supplies) does not exceed Rs. 2.5 lakh. This threshold applies specifically to B2B output tax — tax on supplies to other GST-registered businesses — and does not apply to B2C supplies.

What ₹2.5 Lakh Monthly B2B Output Tax Translates To

At an 18% GST rate — the rate applicable to most professional and IT services — a monthly B2B output tax liability of Rs. 2.5 lakh corresponds to a monthly B2B turnover of approximately Rs. 13.9 lakh, or roughly Rs. 1.67 crore annually, assuming the business deals exclusively in B2B supplies at the standard rate. At a 5% rate, the equivalent monthly B2B turnover threshold is considerably higher. The relevant number for self-assessment is the monthly output tax figure itself, not turnover — and it must be projected forward, not assessed only against current billing.

If an applicant opts for Rule 14A registration in Part B of Form GST REG-01, the process requires OTP-based or biometric Aadhaar authentication of the Primary Authorised Signatory and at least one Promoter, Partner, or Director (subject to the exemptions under Section 25(6D) of the CGST Act, discussed below). On successful authentication, the registration is granted electronically within 3 working days of submission — substantially faster than the standard timeline.

What “Normal” Registration Looks Like — And Why It Often Means Physical Verification

If an applicant does not opt for Rule 14A — or is not eligible to — the application proceeds under the standard process governed by Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The standard process itself branches further, depending on whether Aadhaar authentication is completed:

Aadhaar-Authenticated (Standard)

Non-Aadhaar / Failed Authentication

Primary Authorised Signatory and one Promoter/Partner/Director complete Aadhaar OTP or biometric authentication at a GST Suvidha Kendra (GSK)

Applicant does not opt for Aadhaar authentication, or authentication fails

Registration granted within 7 working days if documentation is in order (Rule 9(1))

Registration granted only after physical verification of the principal place of business by the proper officer

If a query is raised, Form GST REG-03 is issued and the applicant responds via Form GST REG-04 within 7 working days

Timeline extends to up to 30 days under the proviso to Rule 9(1), to accommodate the site visit and verification report

No mandatory site visit unless the application is separately flagged as high-risk by the GST system

The proper officer’s verification report (Form GST REG-30, with photographs) must be uploaded before the registration can be granted

It is important to understand that Rule 14A and the Aadhaar-authenticated standard pathway are not the same thing, even though both involve Aadhaar authentication and both are faster than the non-Aadhaar route. Rule 14A is a distinct optional scheme with its own eligibility threshold (the Rs. 2.5 lakh B2B output tax cap) and its own exit mechanism (Form GST REG-32, discussed below). A company can complete Aadhaar authentication and obtain registration in 7 working days under the standard process without opting into Rule 14A at all — and for many Private Limited Companies, this is the more appropriate choice.

Who Should Choose Which — A Framework for Private Limited Companies

Choose Rule 14A If

Your company’s projected monthly B2B output tax liability will remain comfortably and predictably below Rs. 2.5 lakh for the foreseeable future — for example, an early-stage consulting or services company with a small number of B2B clients and modest billing — and speed of registration (3 working days) is operationally important, such as needing to onboard a corporate client at short notice.

Choose Standard Aadhaar-Authenticated Registration If

Your company expects growth in B2B billing that could approach or exceed the Rs. 2.5 lakh monthly B2B output tax threshold within the next 12 to 24 months — which describes most Private Limited Companies incorporated with growth, fundraising, or scaling intentions. The 7-working-day timeline under the standard Aadhaar route is only marginally longer than Rule 14A’s 3 days, without the threshold constraint.

The Practical Problem With Rule 14A for a Growing Private Limited Company

The Rs. 2.5 lakh monthly B2B output tax cap under Rule 14A is not merely an eligibility condition at the time of application — it is an ongoing condition. If a company registered under Rule 14A subsequently exceeds this threshold in any month, Rule 14A(5) requires the taxpayer to mandatorily file Form GST REG-32 to withdraw from the scheme. Reports from early implementation indicate that taxpayers who crossed the threshold without filing REG-32 encountered a portal-level restriction where the GSTR-1 summary could not be generated for that period — directly affecting the ability to file returns on time. For a Private Limited Company that anticipates crossing this threshold as the business grows — which is the explicit goal of most incorporations — opting into Rule 14A creates a future compliance event (REG-32) that serves no purpose the standard registration route would not have served from the outset, without the threshold dependency.

Form GST REG-32 — What It Is and When It Is Needed

Form GST REG-32 is the application for withdrawal from the Rule 14A simplified registration scheme. It is important to be precise about what this form does and does not do:

What REG-32 Is

A formal application, filed on the GST portal under Services > Registration > Application for Withdrawal from Rule 14A, to exit the Rule 14A scheme. The taxpayer continues under the same GSTIN, under the normal registration regime, after approval. The officer’s approval is communicated in Form GST REG-33.

What REG-32 Is Not

It is not a cancellation of registration under Section 29. It does not result in a new GSTIN being issued. There is no need to update contracts, invoices, bank records, or inform clients of a new GST number — the GSTIN remains unchanged throughout.

When REG-32 Becomes Necessary

A taxpayer registered under Rule 14A must file Form GST REG-32 when any of the following occurs:

Monthly B2B Output Tax Exceeds Rs. 2.5 Lakh

The moment a company’s B2B output tax liability for a tax period crosses the threshold — typically a sign of healthy revenue growth — withdrawal under Rule 14A(5) becomes mandatory, not optional.

Taxpayer No Longer Wishes to Continue Under the Scheme

Even where the threshold has not been breached, a taxpayer may voluntarily opt out if the simplified scheme’s conditions no longer suit the business — for instance, if the conditions attached to Rule 14A registration are found to constrain a planned business change.

Pre-Filing Conditions Must Be Met Before REG-32 Is Filed

The withdrawal application requires the taxpayer to have filed all due returns up to the date of withdrawal, and there should be no pending proceedings for cancellation of registration under Section 29. The application must also be Aadhaar-authenticated for the relevant Primary Authorised Signatory and one Promoter/Partner before it can be processed. Once submitted, the proper officer reviews the application under the timelines applicable to Rule 9, and either approves it via Form GST REG-33 or raises a query via Form GST REG-03.

Who Is Exempt From Aadhaar Authentication — Section 25(6D)

Both Rule 14A and the standard Aadhaar-authenticated registration route depend on Aadhaar authentication of specified persons. Section 25(6C) of the CGST Act, read with the notifications issued thereunder, mandates Aadhaar authentication for specified classes of registrants — including, for a company, the Authorised Signatory and at least one Director (or Karta, Managing Director, or Whole-Time Director, depending on the entity type).

Section 25(6D) of the CGST Act carves out exemptions from this requirement for specified persons or classes of persons as the Government may notify. Persons falling within these exempted categories — including non-resident applicants and certain other notified categories — are not required to undergo Aadhaar authentication and proceed via the alternative identification and verification route, which involves physical verification of the principal place of business.

A Note on Terminology — REG-32 vs “Form 32”

This article addresses Form GST REG-32 — the withdrawal application under Rule 14A of the CGST Rules, 2017. This should not be confused with “Form 32” under the Companies Act, 1956 (an erstwhile form for changes in director particulars, long since superseded by Form DIR-12 under the Companies Act, 2013), or with any Income Tax form bearing a similar number. In GST law, the relevant references are Rule 14A, Form GST REG-01 (application), Form GST REG-32 (withdrawal from Rule 14A), and Form GST REG-33 (order on withdrawal). Precision on form numbers matters — the GST portal will not recognise a request framed under the wrong rule or form reference.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Rule 14A registration available to all types of businesses, or only certain constitutions?

Rule 14A is available to applicants across constitutions of business, including Private Limited Companies, LLPs, partnerships, and proprietorships, subject to the core eligibility condition — monthly B2B output tax liability not exceeding Rs. 2.5 lakh — and completion of the required Aadhaar authentication. An applicant cannot hold more than one Rule 14A registration in the same State or Union Territory under the same PAN.

If I select “No” for Rule 14A, does that mean physical verification is mandatory?

No. Selecting “No” for Rule 14A simply means the application proceeds under the standard registration process (Rule 8/9). Within that standard process, if the applicant separately opts for and successfully completes Aadhaar authentication, the registration can still be granted within 7 working days without a mandatory physical site visit, except where the GST system independently flags the application for verification based on its own risk parameters. Physical verification becomes mandatory specifically where Aadhaar authentication is not opted for, or where it is opted for but fails.

Can a Private Limited Company switch from Rule 14A to normal registration without changing its GSTIN?

Yes. This is precisely the function of Form GST REG-32. Upon approval (communicated via Form GST REG-33), the taxpayer continues operating under the same GSTIN, transitioned to the normal registration regime. No new registration, no new GSTIN, and no requirement to amend existing invoices, contracts, or bank mandates.

What happens if a company under Rule 14A crosses the threshold but does not file REG-32?

Rule 14A(5) makes the filing of REG-32 mandatory once the threshold is exceeded. Based on early implementation experience reported after the scheme’s effective date of 1st November 2025, taxpayers who crossed the threshold without filing REG-32 encountered portal-level restrictions affecting GSTR-1 summary generation for the relevant period, which has downstream implications for GSTR-3B filing. Given this, any Private Limited Company registered under Rule 14A should monitor its monthly B2B output tax liability closely and initiate the REG-32 process proactively, well before the threshold is breached, rather than reactively after a filing is affected.

For a newly incorporated Private Limited Company expecting to onboard one or two corporate clients in the first year, which option is more appropriate?

This depends on the scale of those engagements. If the combined monthly B2B output tax across these clients is expected to remain well below Rs. 2.5 lakh on a sustained basis with no near-term scaling plans, Rule 14A’s 3-day registration can provide a faster path to raising the first compliant invoice. However, if there is reasonable visibility that the engagement value could grow — which is the case for most companies actively pursuing corporate clients — the marginal time saving of Rule 14A (3 days versus 7 days under standard Aadhaar-authenticated registration) is generally not worth the future REG-32 dependency. This is a decision worth discussing with your CA at the time of GST application, based on the company’s specific projections, rather than defaulting to whichever option appears first on the registration form.

Akhil Amit And Associates · Chartered Accountants, Pune

Registering for GST and unsure which route applies to your company?

We assess your projected B2B billing before filing the GST application — so the registration route matches where your company is headed, not just where it stands today. If your company is already registered under Rule 14A and approaching the threshold, we handle the Form GST REG-32 withdrawal proactively. 250+ companies managed across Chinchwad, Wakad, and Ravet-Kiwale, Pune.

WhatsApp Us Get in Touch

Tag: 14A vs Normal GST Registration, Best CA in Pimpri Chinchwad, Best CA in Pune, Best CA Near Me, CA for Private Limited Company, CA Near Me, GST Registration in Pune, GST Registration Near Me, Private Limited Company Compliance, Private Limited Company Registration, Private Limited Company Registration in Pune

Why Most Private Limited Companies in India Are Structured Wrong From Day One — And How to Fix It

Practitioner Notes · Company Structuring Pre-Incorporation Decisions June 2026 · Pune

Why Most Private Limited Companies in India Are Structured Wrong From Day One — And How to Fix It

The Certificate of Incorporation does not certify that your company is structured correctly — only that it is structured legally. There is a significant difference, and most founders only discover it when an investor, a co-founder dispute, or a tax notice forces the issue.

MOA Objects Clause Shareholding Structure Authorised Capital Founders’ Agreement DIN & Director Roles Pune & PCMC

In ten years of incorporating and managing compliance for over 250 Private Limited Companies, a pattern has become unmistakable: the companies that run into the most expensive problems three to five years after incorporation are rarely the ones that filed something wrong. They are the ones that filed everything correctly — but made structural decisions at incorporation without understanding their long-term consequences.

The Registrar of Companies does not check whether your shareholding split makes sense for a co-founder relationship. It does not flag an objects clause that is too narrow for the business you will actually run in two years. It does not warn you that the authorised capital figure you chose arbitrarily will determine your ROC fee structure for as long as the company exists. These are not legal defects — the company is validly incorporated either way. They are structural decisions, made under time pressure during incorporation, that quietly become expensive later.

This article examines six such decisions — what typically goes wrong, why it goes unnoticed for years, and what the fix looks like at each stage. If you are about to incorporate, this is a checklist. If you incorporated some time ago, this is a diagnostic.

A company can be 100% legally compliant and still be structurally unprepared for the next five years of its own growth.

01An Objects Clause Written for the Business at Incorporation, Not the Business at Year Three

The Memorandum of Association’s objects clause defines the activities a company is authorised to undertake. At incorporation, founders typically describe their business in the narrowest, most literal terms — “to provide software development services” for a company that will, within two years, also be reselling licences, offering consulting, and operating a SaaS subscription model.

None of this is illegal in the interim. A company can operate informally outside its stated objects without immediate consequence. The problem surfaces during due diligence — for an investment round, a loan application, or a government tender — when a counterparty’s legal team reviews the MOA and finds that a significant portion of the company’s actual revenue comes from activities not covered by the objects clause.

The Fix

Drafting a broad, multi-paragraph objects clause at incorporation costs nothing extra — the MOA is drafted once regardless of length. If your company has already outgrown its objects clause, it can be amended through a special resolution and Form MGT-14, but this is a filing most founders do not think to make until a counterparty’s lawyer raises it — usually mid-negotiation, when timing pressure makes the amendment more stressful than it needed to be.

02Equal Shareholding Between Co-Founders With Unequal Roles

A 50:50 shareholding split between two co-founders is the most common structure at incorporation — and the most common source of deadlock two to four years later. Equal shareholding feels fair at the point of incorporation, when both founders are contributing capital and time roughly equally and the company has no value yet.

The complications emerge when the founders’ contributions diverge over time — one founder takes an operational role while the other steps back, one raises a personal investment that the other does not match, or the founders simply disagree on a strategic direction with no tie-breaking mechanism. At a 50:50 split with two directors, neither party can pass an ordinary resolution without the other’s consent. This is not a hypothetical — it is one of the most common reasons a viable company becomes unable to make basic operational decisions.

The Fix

This is not necessarily an argument against equal shareholding — it is an argument for a Founders’ Agreement executed alongside incorporation, addressing deadlock resolution, vesting schedules tied to continued involvement, drag-along and tag-along rights, and a clear process for valuing and buying out a co-founder’s shares if one exits. A Founders’ Agreement is not a regulatory filing — it is a private contract between shareholders — which is precisely why it is so often skipped. It is the single most valuable document that does not appear on any government checklist.

03Authorised Capital Set Without Reference to the Funding Roadmap

Authorised capital — the maximum share capital a company is permitted to issue — is often set at Rs. 1 lakh by default at incorporation, because that is the figure most incorporation packages use as a template, and because MCA fee slabs are lowest at this level. For a company with no near-term funding plans, this is entirely appropriate.

For a company that intends to raise an investment round, a Rs. 1 lakh authorised capital becomes a constraint the moment the round is structured. If the investment requires issuing shares whose face value would exceed the authorised capital, the company must first increase its authorised capital — via Form SH-7, with additional ROC fees calculated on the increased slab — before the share allotment can be processed. This is a routine filing, but it adds a step, a cost, and a timeline dependency to a fundraising process that already has enough moving parts.

The Fix

This is not an argument for setting authorised capital artificially high at incorporation — higher authorised capital means higher MCA fees on annual filings for the life of the company. It is an argument for a five-minute conversation at incorporation about the funding roadmap, so that the authorised capital figure is a deliberate choice rather than a default that creates an administrative dependency at the worst possible time — mid-term-sheet.

04A Second Director Added Purely to Satisfy Section 149(1), With No Defined Role

Section 149(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 requires a Private Limited Company to have a minimum of two directors. For a solo founder, the common solution is to appoint a spouse, parent, or close relative as the second director — often with a token shareholding and no operational involvement.

This satisfies the legal requirement. What it often does not satisfy is a clear understanding — on the part of both the founder and the second director — of what being a director actually means. A director of a Private Limited Company carries statutory obligations: signing annual filings, being named in MCA records as an officer in default for any compliance lapse, and in serious cases, facing disqualification under Section 164(2) for the company’s non-compliance — regardless of whether that director was operationally involved in the business.

The Fix

If a second director is appointed to satisfy the statutory minimum, both the founder and the appointee should understand — in plain terms, before signing the consent to act as director (Form DIR-2) — what compliance obligations and personal exposure come with the role, however nominal the involvement is intended to be. This is a five-minute conversation that very rarely happens, and the appointee usually finds out what Section 164(2) means only when their DIN is at risk.

05No Distinction Between Founder Salary, Director Remuneration, and Dividend — Decided Ad Hoc

How a founder-director is compensated — salary, professional fees, director remuneration, or dividend — has materially different tax treatment, TDS implications, and ROC disclosure requirements. In the early months of a company, when cash flow is irregular, it is common for founders to draw money from the company account as needed, without a formal classification.

This becomes a problem at the time of the first statutory audit, when the auditor must classify every withdrawal — and inconsistent or undocumented withdrawals can be questioned, recharacterised, or in some cases treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with different and often less favourable tax consequences than the founder intended.

The Fix

Decide, from the first month of operations, how founder compensation will be structured — even if the amount is modest or irregular initially. A board resolution authorising a monthly remuneration figure, even a nominal one, creates a clean paper trail that the statutory auditor can work with, and avoids the retrospective reclassification exercise that otherwise happens at year-end.

06Registered Office on a Residential Address With No Plan for What Happens When It Changes

Using a residential address as the registered office at incorporation is common, legal, and often the right choice for a new company. The complication is not the choice itself — it is the absence of a plan for what happens when the company moves to a commercial office, which most growing companies eventually do.

A change of registered office address — even within the same city — requires filing Form INC-22 with the ROC within 30 days of the change. Beyond the company itself, the registered address appears on the GST registration, the Shop Act licence, the company PAN correspondence address, bank KYC records, and any government registrations obtained at incorporation. A registered office change that is not propagated to all of these creates a scattered trail of outdated addresses across multiple government databases — each of which may eventually generate a notice sent to an address the company no longer occupies.

The Fix

When the registered office changes, treat it as a checklist exercise covering Form INC-22, GST registration amendment, Shop Act licence update, bank KYC update, and PAN/TAN correspondence address — in that order, within the same week. The legal filing (INC-22) is the easy part; the propagation across other registrations is where companies fall behind, often without realising it until a notice is returned undelivered.

A Quick Diagnostic for Existing Companies

If your company has already been incorporated, the following table indicates when each of these structural questions becomes time-sensitive — and when it can wait.

Structural Question	Becomes Urgent When	Cost of Addressing Now vs Later
Objects clause coverage	Before any due diligence, loan application, or tender	Now: one MGT-14 filing. Later: mid-negotiation amendment under time pressure
Shareholding & Founders’ Agreement	Before any disagreement arises — agreements made after a dispute starts are rarely fair to either side	Now: a private agreement. Later: potential legal dispute, possible deadlock under Section 167/242
Authorised capital vs funding plan	Before initiating any investment round	Now: a planning conversation. Later: SH-7 filing as a critical-path item during fundraising
Director role clarity	Before three consecutive years of any compliance default	Now: a conversation with the appointee. Later: disqualification under Section 164(2) discovered unexpectedly
Compensation classification	Before the first statutory audit	Now: a board resolution. Later: auditor queries and possible Section 2(22)(e) exposure
Registered office propagation	Within 30 days of any office change	Now: one coordinated update. Later: scattered government records and undelivered notices

Why This List Is Not About Compliance Filings

None of the six issues above represent a compliance default in the conventional sense — a company can be current on every ROC filing, every GST return, and every TDS payment, and still carry every one of these structural gaps. That is precisely why they go unaddressed for years. The annual compliance calendar — AOC-4, MGT-7, GSTR filings — does not surface structural questions. Only an event — a fundraise, a co-founder exit, an audit, a due diligence process — does. The companies that handle these events smoothly are, almost without exception, the ones where someone asked these questions years before the event occurred.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a company amend its MOA objects clause after incorporation, and does it affect existing operations?

Yes. Amending the objects clause requires a special resolution of the shareholders (75% majority) followed by filing Form MGT-14 with the ROC within 30 days of the resolution. The amendment does not affect contracts or operations already undertaken — it expands the company’s authorised scope going forward. The process typically takes one to two weeks and does not require ROC pre-approval for most standard amendments.

Is a Founders’ Agreement legally required, and where is it filed?

A Founders’ Agreement (sometimes structured as a Shareholders’ Agreement) is not a statutory requirement under the Companies Act, 2013 and is not filed with the ROC. It is a private contract between the shareholders, governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Its absence does not affect the validity of the company’s incorporation — but its absence is precisely what makes co-founder disputes difficult to resolve, since there is no agreed mechanism to fall back on.

If authorised capital needs to be increased later, how is it done and what does it cost?

Increasing authorised capital requires an ordinary resolution of the shareholders (assuming the Articles of Association permit it, which they typically do) and filing Form SH-7 with the ROC. The MCA fee for SH-7 is calculated based on the difference between the existing and the new authorised capital, as per the prescribed fee slabs. For most early-stage increases (for example, from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10 lakh), the fee is moderate — but the filing itself, including board and shareholder resolutions, typically takes about a week to complete properly, which matters when it sits on the critical path of a funding round.

What happens if a nominal second director wants to resign after a few years?

A director can resign at any time by giving notice to the company, which then files Form DIR-12 with the ROC within 30 days. However, the company must ensure a replacement director is appointed if the resignation would bring the total number of directors below the statutory minimum of two under Section 149(1). If the resigning director was also a shareholder, the share transfer (if any) is a separate process governed by the Articles of Association and, where applicable, the Founders’ Agreement — which is one of the specific scenarios such an agreement is meant to address.

Should every Private Limited Company get a structural review, even if compliance is up to date?

A structural review is most valuable at two points: shortly after incorporation, when changes are simplest and cheapest to make, and before any significant event — a fundraise, a co-founder change, crossing a turnover threshold that triggers new compliance, or a registered office change. Outside of these points, an annual review alongside the statutory audit — even a brief one — is sufficient to catch most of the issues described above before they become time-sensitive.

Akhil Amit And Associates · Chartered Accountants, Pune

Incorporating soon, or want a structural review of your existing company?

We build the objects clause, shareholding structure, authorised capital, and founders’ documentation into the incorporation process from day one — not as an afterthought. For existing companies, we offer a structural review alongside the annual statutory audit, at no additional engagement overhead. 250+ companies managed across Chinchwad, Wakad, and Ravet-Kiwale, Pune.

WhatsApp Us Get in Touch

Tag: Best CA in Pune, CA Near Me, Company Registration in Pune, Private Limited Company Compliance, Private Limited Company Registration, Private Limited Company Registration in Pune