2017 (1) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Applicability of provisions of Section 179 - Liability of directors of private company in liquidation - maintainability of the writ petition - Held that - The petitioner has an alternative remedy to file a revision before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The plea that the provision of Section 179 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner can be raised by the petitioner before the revisional authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedy under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Section 179 in the case of the petitioner regarding the liability for the outstanding demand of a company in liquidation.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the writ petition
The petitioner sought a writ order to quash an order dated 20-08-2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file a revision before the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The court acknowledged the availability of an alternative remedy and held that the petitioner could raise the issue of the inapplicability of Section 179 before the revisional authority. Consequently, the court closed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to avail the appropriate remedy under the law.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 179
The petitioner, a former director of a company in liquidation, received a notice under Section 179(1) asking to show cause for the recovery of an outstanding demand from the company. The petitioner contended that since the company was a Public Ltd. Company, the provisions of Section 179, which deal with the liability of directors of Private Limited Companies in liquidation, were not applicable. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, however, passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount. Both parties argued about the applicability of Section 179 based on the company's status as Private Ltd. or Public Ltd. The court did not delve into the merits of this argument due to the availability of an alternative remedy for the petitioner to raise this issue before the revisional authority.

This judgment primarily focused on the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting available remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The applicability of Section 179 in the case of the petitioner, concerning the liability for the outstanding demand of a company in liquidation, was not conclusively decided due to the procedural aspects of the case.