9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings against the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser, for valuable consideration. It may not be necessary for this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings, but, it would suffice to hold that the impugned proceedings cannot be enforced against the petitioner or the property purchased by them, leaving it open to the Commissioner of Sales Tax Department to proceed against the defaulting Company - petition disposed off. - W. P. No. 7592 of 2009, M.P.No.2 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : M/s. C. R. Rukmani For the Respondents : Mrs.S. Narmadha Sampath Special Government Pleader ORDER Heard M/s.C.R.Rukmani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S. Narmadha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Factory Private Limited, but, in fact, purchased the property from one Tmt.S.K.Geetha and Tmt.Dhanalakshmi respectively for valuable consideration. The properties were originally owned by the defaulting Company, the Company went into liquidation and was wound up, pursuant to the order passed in in C.P.No.94 of 2001, dated 07.03.2002. The Official Liquidator is stated to have brought the property for sale, under the supervision of this Court, and sold two items of the properties to Sathyakumar and Dhanalakshmi, by a registered sale deed, dated 13.11.2006, bearing Document No.360 of 2007. The said purchaser, viz., Sathyakumar, in turn, sold his portion of the property to Tmt.S.K.Geetha, the petitioner's vendor, by a registered sale deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be recovered only from the company and not from its directors.Section 19A of the Act cannot be taken assistance by the respondent for sustaining the order, which provides for the liability to tax of partitioned Hindu family, dissolved firm. Even section 19B of the Act, which provides for liability to tax private company on winding up, cannot be invoked. 5. In this regard, useful reference can be had to the decisions of various High Courts, which are as follows : In the case of Desiraju Venkatakrishna Sarma, In re, (1955) XXV Company Cases 32, Andhra Pradesh High Court has, in similar circumstance, held that a company is a body corporate and can be made liable for payment of taxes in respect of taxes payable by it. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Managing Director of a company for the tax due by the company, no proceedings can be initiated against the Director of the Managing Director for recovery of such dues. In Nishad Patel v. State of Kerala ((1999) 113 STC 395), the High Court of Kerala held that a company is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders as well as its directors, and as such no proceedings can be taken against the Directors of a company for recovery of any amounts whatsoever due from the company. The directors cannot be made personally liable to pay arrears of sales tax due from the company under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In Subash Chandra Kankaria v. State of Rajasthan ((1999) 114 STC 413, the Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan Taxation Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
