9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, we would issue specific orders fixing the time within which a notice has to be served, appearance has to be made and orders passed. We are also of the opinion that Exhibits P13 and P8 orders have to be quashed; but, however, with a restriction that the order not to travel outside India as is seen from Exhibit P8 shall continue till fresh orders are passed. It is so ordered. The appellant is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 29.06.2018, on which date he shall be issued with a fresh notice under Section 179 and under Section 230. - W. A. No. 1180 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2018 - Mr. K. Vinod Chandran And Ashok Menon, JJ. For The Appellant : Sri. Joseph Markos (Senior Advocate) And Smt. Preetha S. Nair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r at Exhibit P8 was issued in view of the outstanding liability of the appellant in his individual capacity for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16. The total liability came to ₹ 22,66,713/-. The appellant submits that the said demand has been stayed, as seen from the endorsements in Exhibit P11 and P19; on payment of 20% of the demand. The tax and penalty as demanded for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16 having been stayed, there is no demand subsisting on the appellant which alone could enable the officer to act under Section 230 of the IT Act, is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. 3. With respect to Exhibit P13 order, though it was issued on 14.08.2017, it was not served on the appellant. The appellant on co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the resignation in the year 2009 was intimated to the Registrar of Companies only in the year 2011 by an officer authorized in the year 2011 to file such returns. The same was an afterthought and cannot be relied on to relieve the appellant of the liability as against the Private Limited Company. Yet again, it is pointed out that even assuming for argument sake that the appellant had resigned in the year 2009, even then there is huge liability for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 when the appellant was admittedly a Director of the Company. There is more than ₹ 24 crores due as tax and penalty for the said years after adjustment of the liquid cash recovered from the premises of the Company. With respect to the order under Section 230, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow be looked at, since even otherwise there is due as tax, more than 16 crores for the assessment year 2010-11 as against the Company as seen from Exhibit P13 order. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the appellant is a person who was once allowed to go abroad, who has returned promptly within the time stipulated and even now his intention is to get medical assistance from the country in which he has a valid insurance policy. However, we do not see anything produced to substantiate the claim that the insurance as taken out by the appellant from Abu Dhabi restricts indemnification only insofar as the medical treatment carried out within that country. The appellant requires travel abroad for the purpose of availing the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge found that the appellant was not heard in both the said proceedings. The Department's argument that notice was issued but none turned up, was also noticed. The fact that the appellant was detained when Section 179 proceedings were initiated and proceeded with, was also taken note of. Considering all these circumstances, the order under Section 179 was quashed and the appellant was directed to be re-heard within a period six weeks. In the meanwhile, the proceedings under Section 230 were also directed to be done afresh. However, Exhibit P8 was not interfered with only to ensure that in the meanwhile the appellant does not go abroad and in the process take flight. The learned Single Judge also directed the officer to consider whether E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie: of Sections 230 and 179. If the officer feels that the travel of the appellant need not be restricted, the officer would be entitled to say so, but on reasoning given. In passing an order, the officer should take note of the fact that properties of the appellant are attached. The officer would also, in adjudicating the issue of permitting the appellant's travel abroad, verify whether the properties already attached would be sufficient to satisfy the demands made against the appellant. The Registrar of Companies who has been impleaded as the additional respondent in the writ petition and appearing in the party array of the appeal shall provide all necessary assistance to the 2nd respondent and furnish documents if any of the private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
