9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and October 19, 1996 (annexures "9" and "11", respectively, to the writ petition), and for quashing the assessment order dated March 1, 1994 (annexure "4" to the writ petition). It is to be made clear that learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the very outset that he does not press for quashing of the assessment order dated March 1, 1994 (annexure "4"), which is appealable. He confines h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax, unless he proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company. From this section, it is clear that the recovery can be made from a director of the company. Then, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that section 179(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of section 179, observed as under : "Section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to its amendment in 1975, for the first time provided that the directors of a private limited company in liquidation would be liable jointly and severally with the company for payment of arrears of tax. There was no corresponding provision in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 179 imposes a vicarious lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany. Therefore, the submission of counsel for the petitioner that no recovery can be made from the petitioner of the dues outstanding against the company has to be rejected. Then, the submission of counsel for the petitioner is that though the impugned notices (annexures "9" and "11") purport to have been issued as notices, they are in fact orders calling upon the petitioner to pay up the dues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent can proceed against the petitioner. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit, it is clearly stated that all assets of the company had been disposed of under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and that the possession of the unit was handed over to the purchaser on March 4, 1995. In this fact-situation it cannot be argued that the respondent should have proceeded against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
