9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porate veil even if it is, would be in breach of the principles of natural justice and hence, cannot be sustained. Thus the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 at Exhibit 1 is quashed and set aside, but with the observations that it would be open to the respondent - competent officer to formulate the ground and thereafter, to give a notice for treating the company as private limited company by lifting of the corporate veil and thereafter, to take steps, if any, available in accordance with law under section 179 of the Act. At that stage, the petitioner may show cause by resisting the ground for contending that it is genuinely a public limited company and the corporate veil should not be lifted. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, the petitioner received copy of order dated 19.11.2013 already passed by the officer concerned. The petitioner contends that though the order is dated 19.11.2013, it was never served to him and pending the petition since the order is received by him, the petition was amended challenging the said order dated 19.11.2013. It is under these circumstances, the present matter comes up for final disposal before this Court. 2. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Soparkar appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. As such, it is undisputed position that the company is a limited company and therefore, can be termed as public limited since it is not a private limited company. The language of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Affidavit-in-reply cannot be considered for supplementing the order for which there is complete silence. 6. We may record that in the above referred decision of this Court in case of Pravinbhai M. Kheni (supra), while considering the case under section 179 of the Act itself, this Court at page 23 had concluded thus: 1) The respondent authorities did establish that it was not possible to recover the tax dues from the company. 2) The petitioner neither pleaded nor succeeded in establishing that such non recovery was not attributable to any gross neglect, misfeasance or failure in discharging duty on his part in connection with the affairs of the company. 3) Being a public company, ordinarily, provisions of section 179(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fting of the corporate veil is impermissible if the facts are so demonstrated and the competent officer is satisfied for such purpose. But, in any case, as per the above referred conclusion No.6, the person concerned is required to be put to notice by formulation of the tentative ground as to why the concept of lifting of the corporate veil should not be invoked. The Director of the company may show justifiable ground to satisfy the authority that no case is made out for lifting of the corporate veil and thereafter, the competent officer may form an opinion whether to lift the corporate veil or not. But, in any case, as neither has happened in the present case, it can be said that the order passed based on the lifting of the corporate veil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
