2022 (1) TMI 1066 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of attachment orders - Recovery of Sales Tax - creation of charge over the property - rights by mutation of entries - HELD THAT - The issue raised in the present writ application is no longer res integra in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of MANHARLAL HIRJIBHAI VIRDIYA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX 2021 (10) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that the auction of the residential property in question as illegal and bad in law and restrained the respondents from attaching or selling any private property of the Managing Director of the Company for realization of the aforesaid dues. The charge created by the State in the revenue records with respect to the subject property is set aside and both the orders of attachment are also hereby quashed and set aside - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to attachment orders and lien on property due to sales tax recovery, interpretation of personal liability of directors for company dues, applicability of legal precedent on attaching personal property of managing directors for company debts.

Analysis:
1. Attachment Orders Challenge:
The writ applicant sought relief through a writ application under Article 226 to quash the attachment orders dated 10/07/2020 and 28/07/2020 and set aside the lien on the property. The property in question was purchased through a registered sale deed, and the State created a charge over it to recover dues from a company's former director. The applicant requested a stay on the orders and sought a cost of litigation.

2. Interpretation of Personal Liability:
The central issue revolved around whether personal property of a managing director can be attached for company dues under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and Gujarat Sales Tax Act. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that the legislation does not provide for personal liability of directors for company debts. The Court referenced the principle of not lifting the corporate veil lightly and highlighted the need for a strong factual foundation to establish personal liability.

3. Legal Precedent Applicability:
The judgment referred to a prior case where the Court quashed an attachment notification, emphasizing that the authorities cannot proceed against the personal properties of directors for company dues. The decision highlighted the absence of provisions holding directors personally liable for company debts, reinforcing the protection of personal assets from such liabilities. Based on this precedent, the Court allowed the writ application, setting aside the charge on the property and quashing the attachment orders.

4. Disposition:
The Court allowed the writ application, setting aside the charge created by the State on the property and quashing the attachment orders. It directed the State to pursue recovery of dues from the company through legal means available, without attaching personal properties of directors. The judgment clarified the limits of personal liability for company debts and upheld the principle of protecting personal assets from such liabilities.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal issues addressed in the judgment, including challenges to attachment orders, interpretation of personal liability of directors for company dues, and the applicability of legal precedent in protecting personal assets from company debts.