Allowed

Mohanlal Ojha v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Madras HC5 Jul 2017WP/18455/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed writ petitions filed by Directors of Metro Industries challenging distrain proceedings for company tax arrears. Relying on settled cases and a communication indicating the company had settled all dues, the Single Judge forbade recovery actions against the individual Directors.

What did the court decide?

Writs allowed to forbear recovery proceedings; petitions by other directors previously allowed on dismissal of dues settlement.

Mohanlal Ojha Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 05.07.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam

¶5

Writ Petition Nos. 18455 and 18456 of 2004

¶6

and W.P.M.P.Nos.21979 and 21980 of 2004

¶7

Mohanlal Ojha ...Petitioner in W.P.No.18455 of 2004
2. John Samuel ...Petitioner in W.P.No.18456 of 2004

¶8

Vs.

¶9

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

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Commercial Taxes
and Religious Endowments,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009. ...Respondents in both W.Ps

¶11

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the State of Tamil Nadu, its Officers and agents from proceeding to institute recovery proceedings personally against the petitioners herein pursuant to Form No.4, dated 26.12.2003 of the first respondent herein to release the sales tax dues of Metro Industries Pvt. Ltd., D.P.No.101-A, and 101-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kakkalur (Thiruvallur Taluk and District).

¶12

In both W.Ps.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Prasad

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh Government Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

COMMON O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr.N.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶18

The petitioners, who are Directors of the Metro Industries Pvt. Ltd., are before this Court, challenging the distrain proceedings initiated against them for recovery of the arrears as well as tax payable by the Company.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the Directors of the Company, for the default committed by the Company. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the following reported decisions:-

¶20

i) (R.Vasinathan and others Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) Ambattur Assessment Circle, Villiwakkam) (2009) 23 VST 82 (Mad). ii) (Union of India Vs. Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar) (1988) 172 ITR 1 (Bombay) and iii) (G.C.Mehrotra Vs. Deputy Collector (Collections) Sales Tax (1988) 110 STC 406 (Allahabad) 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, there were two other Directors of the very same Company by name Sushil Kumar Garge and Ved Prakash Agarwal, who had filed similar Writ Petitions, in W.P.Nos.18506 and 18507 of 2004, and after the filing of the said Writ Petitions, a communication, dated 16.04.2010 in Na.Ka.No.14/2003 has been issued, stating that the defaulting Company has settled the entire dues, and the learned Single of this Court, based on the said communication and also by taking into consideration the legal position as well as the factual position, allowed the Writ Petitions, by order, dated 09.12.2015.

¶21

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

¶22

Thus, in the light of the above legal position and that the petitioner-Company has settled the entire arrears, the Writ Petition are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶25

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sd
To
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Thiruvallur Assessment Circle,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Commercial Taxes
and Religious Endowments,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009
+1 cc to Mr.N.Inbarajan Advocate sr 46624
+1 cc to the Special Government Pleader Taxes
Writ Petition Nos. 18455
and 18456 of 2004
kk(co)
aa20/07/2017

¶26

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

Mohanlal Ojha v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal Ojha v. the Deputy Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Elumalai Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Thajudeen, Vs The District Collector

Trade Links Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

T.Mani Vs the District Collector

M/S.Kali Aerated Water Works Vs the Joint Commissioner of

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Tvl.Cherry Blossom Clothing