9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1981-82 on the ground that petitioner No. 2 had been director of the company. The notices were duly replied by petitioner No. 1 on November 2, 1987 (P3 and P4). He also filed an affidavit stating that petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1 and he is settled in U.K. and he had resigned as a director of the company on November 21, 1983 (P5). It has further been asserted in the petition that the letter of resignation was forwarded to the Registrar of Companies on December 20, 1983 on a prescribed form (P2). The prayer made by the petitioner is that no recovery from a former director of the company could be effected because the company is a separate entity and the assessment has been made against the company and not against an individual d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een placed on another judgment of a learned single judge in the case of Tikam Chand Jain v. State Government of Haryana [1987] 67 STC 388 (P&H); [1987-2] 92 PLR 151. Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned State counsel, however, has submitted that section 18 of the CST Act permits recovery from the director of the company. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the petitioners have not been treated fairly by the respondents. It is a well-settled principle of law that a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is a complete separate entity and it has a corporate veil which can be lifted only for limited purposes. The directors of the company cannot be substitute of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndividually as well as severally. This is the basic distinction which is well rooted and is very well known in the legal world. The matter was again considered by a learned single judge of this court in the case of Tikam Chand Jain [1987] 67 STC 388; [1987-2] 92 PLR 151 wherein it was held that in the company law there is no provision making the managing director personally liable for the recovery of the dues of the company. Two more Division Benches of this court deserve to be noticed on the issue, namely, Suneet Khurana v. Assistant Collector [1997] 10 PHT 495 (P&H) and Mukesh Gupta v. State of Haryana [1996] 8 PHT 326 (P&H). Another Division Bench of this court in the case of Om Parkash Walecha v. State of Haryana [2008] 16 VST 530; [200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
