9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an assessee under the IT Act and writ petitioner was a share holding Director on the Board of the said company. 5. With regard to eight successive assessment years viz., 1999-2000 to 2006-07, first respondent commenced proceedings against the writ petitioner, who is a natural person qua what according to the first respondent is tax liability of said company, which is a juristic person. This exercise was commenced by the first respondent by taking recourse to Section 179 of IT Act. For the sake of convenience and clarity, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Section 179 of IT Act and the same reads as follows: '179.Liability of directors of private company in liquidation '[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), [where any tax due from a private company in respect of any income of any previous year or from any other company in respect of any income of any previous year during which such other company was a private company] cannot be recovered, then, every person who was a director of the private company at any time during the relevant previous year shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax unless he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the said company prior to the commencement of the first of the eight successive assessment years to which impugned order pertains. In other words, it is prior to 01.04.1999, is learned writ petitioner counsel's specific say. 11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that writ petitioner has raised this very point in the aforesaid reply to the SCN and first respondent has dealt with the same in the impugned order. First respondent has relied on certain transactions and come to the conclusion that writ petitioner is liable under Section 179 of IT Act rejecting the aforesaid plea of the writ petitioner. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the order, which this Court now proposes to pass, this Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion or view on this plea. The reason is, this Court proposes to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy. 12. Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Revenue counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of both the respondents pointed out that an alternate remedy qua impugned order is available to the writ petitioner. According to learned Revenue Counsel, it is open to the writ petitioner to file a revision under Section 264 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110], Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when it comes to cases pertaining to tax, cess etc., rule of alternate remedy should be applied with utmost rigour. 17. This Satyawati Tandon principle was subsequently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Mathew case [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85], relevant paragraph in K.C.Mathew case is Paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 & 128, Paras 43 & 55) "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which is imperative for appreciating the instant order. The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions. The other reason is, a perusal of SCN, reply and impugned order reveals that the matter turns heavily on factual disputations. As already alluded to supra, a perusal of Section 264 of IT Act makes it clear that writ petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternate remedy as the said Revisional Authority has powers to pass orders which are not prejudicial to the assessee by revising the impugned order. This position is reiterated by learned Revenue counsel. 19. This takes us to the time frame prescribed under Section 264 of IT Act. Time frame prescribed is under sub-section (3) of Section 264 of IT Act and the writ petitioner has to file revision within one year from the date on which the impugned order was communicated to the writ petitioner . From the narrative thus far, it comes to light that the impugned order is dated 24.01.2019 and learned counsel for writ petitioner submits, on instructions, that it has been served on/communicated to the writ petitioner on 31.01.2019. Therefore,it is clear that the writ petitioner is well within the time to file a revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
