Article Section | |||||||||||
Home Articles Goods and Services Tax - GST CA Bimal Jain Experts This |
|||||||||||
Director is not liable for payment of tax amount when it is not determinable that the Company is unable to pay the tax amount during liquidation proceedings |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Discuss this article |
|||||||||||
Director is not liable for payment of tax amount when it is not determinable that the Company is unable to pay the tax amount during liquidation proceedings |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMT. K. MALATHI VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, A.R. RAMASUBRAMANIA RAJA - 2023 (11) TMI 513 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that, Director is not liable for payment of tax amount when it is not determinable that the Company is unable to pay the tax amount during liquidation proceedings. However as per Section 88 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), the Directors can be held liable jointly and severally, when it is conclusively determined that the Company is unable to settle the amount of tax, interest or penalty payable. Facts: K. Malathi (“the Petitioner”) was the Director of M/s Sri Karunambigai Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (“the Company”) and has been ordered to be liquidated by the National Company Law Tribunal order. The Revenue Department conducted an inspection of the Company premises and recovered certain documents. Later, a show cause notice dated June 15, 2020 (“the SCN”) was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, wherein demand was raised for payment of tax on account Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) wrongly availed for Financial Year 2018-2019. As per the legal opinion received by the Petitioner, the Petitioner contended that, the Petitioner has no locus standi to represent the Company after orders of liquidation are passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“the NCLT”). Thereafter, the Respondent intimated the aforementioned facts to the Official Liquidator of the Company (“the Liquidator”) and provided an opportunity of hearing. However, the Liquidator neither filed any reply nor appeared for any hearing. The Respondent vide ex-parte orders dated September 28, 2020 (“the Impugned Orders”) imposed tax, interest and penalty on the Company. The Petitioner, being Director apprehends that the amount stated in the Impugned Order would be recovered from her. Hence, writ petition is filed for quashing of Impugned Orders and DRC-07 issued thereto. Issue: Whether the Director is liable for payment of tax amount when it is not determinable that the Company is unable to pay the tax amount during liquidation proceedings? Held: The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMT. K. MALATHI VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, A.R. RAMASUBRAMANIA RAJA - 2023 (11) TMI 513 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held as under:
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
By: CA Bimal Jain - December 16, 2023
|
|||||||||||
Discuss this article |
|||||||||||