9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EERASWAMI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by VEERASWAMI J.-The petitioner, an erstwhile director of a private limited company by name The Coonoor Talkies Private Limited, prays for a rule forbidding the respondents from attaching his personal properties for recovery of penalty levied on the company for non-payment of tax due for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61. On January 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een given no opportunity to show that he is not liable under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is not disputed that during the accounting years the petitioner was one of the directors. If that be so, section 179 of the Income-tax Act makes every person, who was a director of the private company at any time during the relevant previous years, jointly and severally liable for payment of ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows the certificate for recovery proceedings was properly issued. The second point of the petitioner is based on rule 2 of Part I in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The rule requires that a notice shall issue from the Recovery Officer calling upon the defaulter to pay the amount specified in the certificate within 15 days from the date of the service and intimating that in default, st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The cases decided under rule 22 are to the effect that the object of the rule is but to give the judgment-debtor an opportunity to show cause why execution should not proceed, but if the judgment-debtor is aware of the proceedings, the court has jurisdiction to hold the same and that a fortiori if he appears in the proceedings, he cannot later raise the objection that they are bad for want of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
