9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... working as a Computer Engineer in one associate company of Mr. Sunil Kakkad named as Sai Infosystem (India)Ltd. And while the petitioner was working with said Mr.Sunil Kakkad, who lateron floated a company in the name of Power Infocontrol and Service Pvt.Ltd. With persuation of Mr.Sunil Kakkad, had agreed to become nominal director of the company in the year 2007. However, it is the case of the petitioner at no point of time, the petitioner had any share holding in the company nor even was drawing salary from the company. The petitioner had also stated that he was not even in charge of day to day affairs of the company. As per the say of the petitioner he ceased to be Director of the company with effect from 8.7.2011 and necessary formalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. After hearing the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 23.12.2015: "1. Petitioner has challenged two notices dated 26.05.2015 and 12.10.2015 as Annexures D and E respectively for recovery of the dues of the Sales Tax Department. According to the petitioner, such dues pertained to one Power Infocontrol and Service Pvt. Ltd., a company of which, the petitioner no longer is a director. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that quite apart from the ceasing to be the director of the company long back, the petitioner cannot be personally made answerable to the dues of the private limited company. 2. There is nothing in the said notices to suggest that the recovery are sought to be made again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upta on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner was merely a nominal director and was not even drawing any salary from the company and was not in charge of the day to day affairs of the company. He was merely working in a associate company of Mr. Sunil Kakkad as an engineer and he was persuaded to be director of the company. In the background of these facts, learned counsel contended that from the year 2007 to 2011, the petitioner has never actually worked as a director nor participated in the company's affairs and therefore, the petitioner's liability for the said VAT dues has not accrued. Pursuant to the notice having been issued on earlier occasion, a representation was also filed by the petitioner wherein it was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed by the authority is unjust, illegal, improper and lacks authority. In the background of these facts, learned counsel submitted that the petition may be allowed. 6. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that huge tax demand to the tune of more than Rs. 158 crores is recoverable from the petitioner company. It was pointed out that the petitioner was actively associated with the company as a director. It was also pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner signed certain documents relating to bank transactions. It is also pointed out that when name of the company was changed, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner has put his signature as a director in form no.101 and based upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeded with by the authority. Resignation has also been reflected in form no.32 which would indicate that the petitioner has remained no longer as a director of the company and cannot be held responsible and therefore, could not be proceeded with by way of attachment of property. The respondents may however, argue that the liability which arose during the period when the petitioner was the Director, cannot be avoided simply because he resigned or relieved as a Director later on. This issue need not be decided in this petition because moot question is, can the dues of the limited company be recovered from its Directors ? Our attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of M.R.Choksi (supra), wherein after analysing prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to another decision of this Court delivered on 12.2.2014 in the case of Radhey Mohan Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) in Special Civil Application No.1921 of 2005 wherein the court dealing in the context of section 179 of the Income-tax Act has examined the issue pertaining to responsibility of a director of the company and while examining the question of concept of lifting the corporate veil. The Court held as under: "8. With regard to the outstanding dues of the company for the assessment years 199596, 199697 and 199798, the Company being a Public Limited Company from May 25, 1992 the certificate of incorporation having come, the very issuance of the notice cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
