9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e security bond shall be valid for another three months till further action is taken challenging the order passed by the appellate authority. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a Director. The first respondent cannot proceed against a legal heir of one of the deceased Directors. The company shall be proceeded through the Directors who are holding office and not against the legal heirs of the deceased Director. To be precise, the security bond executed in Form XIX has become void and ineffective by operation of Rule 31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 - Therefore, the bond executed during the pendency of the appeal is not enforceable after the disposal of the appeal. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory provision clearly specifies that In case of appeal or revision is fully allowed or remanded in favour of the appellant/applicant, the security bond or the bank guarantee, as the case may be, shall be void and of no effect. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that on the basis of a bond which was executed during the pendency of the appeal, the impugned proceedings cannot be initiated. The security bond executed shall lapse or become a dead document on the disposal of the appeal in favour of the petitioner. In the instant case, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order and remanded it back to the original authority for fresh consideration. In that event, the security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , again, the security bond will become invalid. If at all, the first respondent seeks to proceed against the second respondent, it shall be done in the manner known to law. The second respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. Any action shall be taken against the properties of the company or by lifting the corporate veil to proceed against the properties of the Directors. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a Director. The first respondent cannot proceed against a legal heir of one of the deceased Directors. The company shall be proceeded through the Directors who are holding office and not against the legal heirs of the deceased Director. To be precise, the security bond executed in Form XIX has beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
