Disposed

Sushil Kumar Garg v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC9 Dec 2015WP/18506/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged recovery notices issued to former directors of a private company under Section 8 of Tamilnadu Act II of 1864. The Court closed the petitions as the company's entire tax arrears were already settled.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as the entire arrears of the private limited company had already been settled.

Sushil Kumar Garg Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.12.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.18506 and 18507 of 2004

¶6

Sushil Kumar Garg ...Petitioner in W.P.No.18506 of 2004

¶7

Ved Prakash Agarwal ...Petitioner in W.P.No.18507 of 2004

¶8

Vs
1. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Kilpauk Assessment Circle,
Chennai 600 094.

¶9

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvallur Assessment Circle, Thiruvallur.

¶10

Respondents in both Writ Petitions.

¶11

Prayer in both Writ Petitions:

¶12

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the first respondent herein on the Distraint Orders in Form No.1 under Section 8 of the Tamilnadu Act II of 1864, issued by the First Respondent herein in Rc.3994/2003 A3, dated 31.5.2004 respectively and quash the said Distraint order in Form No.1 under section 8 of the Tamilnadu Act II of 1864, issued by the First Respondent herein in Rc.3994/2003 A3, dated 31.5.2004 respectivley, while forbearing the first respondent herein not to proceed against the petitioners herein for the alleged due of Metpro Industries Pvt. Ltd., D.P.No.101-A & 101-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kakkalur (Thiruvallur Taluk and District).

¶13

For Petitioner in both Wps. : Mr. N. Inbarajan

¶14

For Respondent in both Wps. : Mr.S.Manoharan Sundaram, AGP

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

The Recovery Notices against the former Directors of the Private Company Limited are challenged in these Writ Petitions relying upon Section 18 of Central Sales Tax Act 1956 and Section 19(b) of the erst while Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Manoharan Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when the Private Limited Company is in existence, no recovery be initiated against the Directors of the Company. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (2009) 23 VST 82 (Mad) (R. Vasinathan and others Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Ambattur Assessment Circle, Villiwakkam, Chennai and another), wherein, the Honourable Division Bench has held as follows;

¶20

“So far as lifting of corporate veil is concerned, in the absence of any material fact before us, no finding can be given. Further, as no winding up order or any other order has been passed under the Companies Act, it cannot be presumed that the company has been wound up. Even if it is accepted that one or other petitioners are related to each other, in the capacity as ex-directors or shareholder, no notice can be issued against them under section 19B of the TNGST Act.

¶21

In Union of India v. Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar (1988) 172 ITR 1 (Bom), the court held that the directors of any company, whether public limited or private, are not personally liable for the debts of the company unless the company court found them guilty of any misfeasance or wrong-doing.

¶22

In G.C.Mehrotra v. Deputy Collector (Collections), Sales Tax (1998) 110 STC 406 (All), the court held that in case of a private company, recovery of tax dues from it cannot be made from its directors, unless permitted by specific provision of the law or by an agreement between the parties.”

¶23

It is brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, a communication dated 16.4.2010 in Na.Ka.14/2003/A3, to the effect that the

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

entire arrears of the Private Limited Company has got already settled, has been issued, a copy of which, is produced by the learned counsel for petitioners before this Court. The said communication is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Hence recording the same, since the entire arrears were recovered and nothing survives in the Writ Petitions to be adjudicated, the Writ Petitions are closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(Cs-III)

¶28

/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
msr
To
1. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Kilpauk Assessment Circle,
Chennai 600 094.
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Thiruvallur Assessment Circle,
Thiruvallur.
+1 CC to Special Govt.Pleader. SR.NO.66447
W.P.Nos.18506 and 18507 of 2004
CO-BVR
JD 19/01/2016

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sushil Kumar Garg v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Garg v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanthilal.N.Shah Vs The Authorized Officer, Food

M.Manoharan, Vs The Member Secretary

P.Mahavishnu Vs The Transport Commissioner

S. Kanagaraj Vs the T.N. Industrial Investment

S.Ananthakrishnan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl Krishna Traders Vs the Appellate Assistant