2016 (12) TMI 805 - HC - Income Tax

Liability of directors of private company in liquidation - Held that - The search was made in the premises of the company in the year 1997 and the block assessment was made for the block period 1986-97 and for some of the period the company was Private Ltd. and for some of the period the company was Public Ltd. The same argument has also been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He therefore submits that provisions of Section 179 are not applicable. As considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 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 alternative remedy available under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Section 179 in the case of the petitioner regarding the recovery of outstanding dues from a company in liquidation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner, a former director of a company in liquidation, argued that the provisions of Section 179 were not applicable to their case. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act for filing a revision before the Commissioner. The court acknowledged the alternative remedy and held that the petitioner could raise the applicability of Section 179 before the revisional authority, thus closing the writ petition with liberty for the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy.

2. The case involved a search and seizure operation conducted in 1997 on a group of companies, including the company where the petitioner was a director. Subsequently, assessments were made, and the company went into liquidation. The petitioner, who had ceased to be a director after the company's liquidation, received a notice under Section 179(1) to show cause for the recovery of outstanding dues. The petitioner contended that as the company was a Public Ltd. Company, the provisions of Section 179 did not apply. Both parties argued about the applicability of Section 179 concerning the company's status as Private Ltd. or Public Ltd. at different periods. The court did not delve into the merits of this argument but indicated that such issues could be raised before the revisional authority, emphasizing the availability of an alternative legal remedy for the petitioner to address the applicability of Section 179 in their case.

This judgment highlights the importance of exhausting alternative legal remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions and indicates that specific legal issues, such as the applicability of statutory provisions, should be raised before the appropriate authorities for adjudication.