Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2002 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2002 (4) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
Challenge to notices under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment involved a challenge to notices under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued to the petitioners. The petitioners, who were non-executive directors of a company, contended that they should not be held personally liable for the company's tax dues as they had resigned before the tax liabilities arose. The petitioners argued that the authority should have first attempted to recover the tax from the company before pursuing them personally. The court examined the provisions of section 179, which state that directors can be held jointly and severally liable for the company's tax if it cannot be recovered from the company itself. The court considered various judgments cited by both parties to determine the extent of directors' liability under this section.

The court noted that for the writ jurisdiction to be invoked, there must be evidence of illegality or material irregularity in the notice served. It analyzed the provisions of section 179 and observed that the joint or several liability of directors arises only if the tax cannot be recovered from the company. The court referred to judgments from different High Courts to establish that a proceeding against directors can only be initiated if there is a finding that the tax cannot be recovered from the company. In this case, the court found that the notice did not contain any averment indicating that the tax could not be recovered from the company. Therefore, the court quashed the notice and allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the notice was not sustainable due to lack of evidence regarding the company's inability to pay the tax.

The court clarified that its order did not prevent the authorities from initiating fresh proceedings if they found that the tax for the relevant period could not be recovered from the company. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper findings by the Assessing Officer regarding the company's inability to pay taxes before holding directors personally liable. The court directed the parties to act on the signed copy of the judgment and provided for the supply of certified copies to all concerned parties within a specified timeframe. The judgment emphasized that the order had a binding effect on both writ petitions and did not admit any factual allegations due to the absence of affidavits from the respondent authorities.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates