9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. There is no provision under the Act so as to fasten the entire liability on any one of the Directors of the company to recover the amounts due in respect of the erstwhile assessee-Company Petitioner was only a Director of the Company and as such, proceedings initiated for mutating the revenue records in the name of 1st respondent that too without issuing notice to the petitioner would be in complete violation of principles of natural justice. Such action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be sustained. The ends of justice would be met if 1st respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and thereafter take appropriate steps to recover the amount in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also by taking note of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in STA No.242/1999. Appeal came to be allowed, matter was remanded back to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for passing orders afresh after on merits-affording opportunity to the petitioner. After the matter was remanded, though notices came to be issued to the assessee, it did not appear. As such, appeal came to be dismissed. Once again, appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in STA No.287/2004 and again the matter came to be remanded to the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, first appellate authority allowed the appeal in part and by order dated 11.01.2007 directed the assessing authority to accept the original return filed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to his becoming Director of the Company, (iii) Even otherwise, petitioner being a Director of a Company cannot be made personally liable to answer the liability of the Company except to the extent of his share holding in the Company, (iv) Though petitioner had retired from the Directorship of the Company by a valid resolution passed by the company and Form No.32 having been filed before the Registrar of Companies, the order of attachment of the property belonging to the petitioner could not have been passed. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the impugned notices issued which is of the year 2010 and contends that after lapse of period of three years, petitioner has approached this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tsoever available before the 1st respondent. 7. Undisputedly, petitioner was only a Director of the Company and as such, proceedings initiated for mutating the revenue records in the name of 1st respondent that too without issuing notice to the petitioner would be in complete violation of principles of natural justice. Such action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be sustained. It is for this reason, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if 1st respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and thereafter take appropriate steps to recover the amount in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also by taking note of the fact that petitioner is a Director of a Company incorporated under the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
