TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were tax dues against the company in respect of which a citation has been issued vide Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the recovery cannot be pressed against the petitioner but can only be pressed against the assets of the company. He has relied on the decision of the House of Lords in Solomon v. Solomon and Co. Ltd., 1897 AC 12, in which it has been held that a Company is a distinct legal entity separate from its directors and shareholders. He has also relied on various decisions of this Court e.g., Shri Purshottamdas Beriwal v. Dy. Collector, 1989 UPTC 456 ; G. C. Mehrotra v. Dy. Collector, 1997 UPTC 1217, etc. Hence he prayed that the respondents be restrained from pressing the recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d., 2000 (3) SCC 312 ; Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1998 SC ; New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 (1) SCC 478 ; C.I.T. v. Meenakshi Mills, AIR 1967 SC 819 ; Telco v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40 and Juggilal Kamlapat v. C.I.T., AIR 1969 SC 932. (4) IN State of U. P. v. Renusagar Power Co., 1988 (4) SCC 59, the Supreme Court observed : It is high time to reiterate that in the expanding horizon of modern jurisprudence, lifting of corporate veil is permissible. Its frontiers are unlimited. It must however, depend primarily on the realities of the situation. The horizon of the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil is expanding. IN Tata Engineering's case (supra) the Supreme Court observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid decision and hence we are not repeating the same. We fully agree with the reasoning in that decision. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable because they have not referred to or dealt with the principle of lifting the veil of corporate personality. Moreover, in the present writ petition the petitioner has deliberately not mentioned whether there are any assets of the company against which the impugned recovery can proceed. He has also not mentioned who really controls the company. In the absence of these details, we can reasonably assume that the assets of the company have been diverted or siphoned off by the petitioner for his own benefit, and has left only a shell. Tax dues have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
