9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, from enforcing the demand made as per Annexs. " D " and " D1 to the petition. The respondent has entered appearance and filed his objections. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition in regard to the prayers, under s. 392 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the " Act "). To appreciate the arguments advanced on both the sides it is necessary to set out some of the facts which are not in dispute. The petitioner-company was ordered to be wound up under s. 433 of the Act, by this court on February 11, 1972, in Company Petition No. 5/71. However, this court subsequently sanctioned a scheme of reconstruction on April 13, 1973, on the application of one Ganesh Naray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exs. " D and " D1 " have been issued by the respondent to the petitioner herein as agent of. M/s. Accumulatoren Fabric and M/s. Samperit, Austria, respectively, demanding certain amounts of income-tax due by the said firms for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 (in respect of the second mentioned company for assessment year 1969-70 only). It is essential to state that Annexs. D and DI relate to assessments already concluded and have reached a finality in the composite orders made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, in Revision Petitions Nos. 199 to 201 of 1973 on his file for the 3 years in so far it relates to the first-mentioned foreign firm. It is submitted from the bar that in respect of the other firm also a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, such demands made at Annexs. and DI are matters arising out of the working of the sanctioned scheme. Alternatively, he has argued that the company is entitled to a declaration and injunction as prayed for, as the demand is made contrary to the provisions of s. 231 of the I.T. Act. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the demand of tax is not in relation to the liability of the company in regard to its income. The demands relate to the foreign collaborators who have been assessed in the hands of the company in its representative capacity as their agent No taxes are due by the company in respect of its income. Taxes are due by the agent of the foreign collaborators and, therefore, it is not a matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utside the working of the scheme sanctioned by the court for reconstruction. As already pointed out, the liability under Annexs. D and DI is the liability of the foreign collaborators. If under the provisions of the I.T. Act the assessments concluded on the foreign collaborators for the relevant assessment years have become final, it will be too far fetched to depend on para. IV, Part B, of the scheme, to consider it as the liability of the company itself, when it has only acted as agents of others, who are liable to be assessed on the relevant date. In any event, I am of the view that s. 392 of the Act does not empower this court to issue directions which do not relate to either the sanctioned scheme itself, or its working in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
