TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961, the petitioner herein, who had acted as a Director of the Company for a short period between 01.04.2010 and 14.10.2010 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that when there were acting Directors of the Company, who are said to be still continuing as the Directors of the Company, the department could have proceeded against any one of such acting Directors for the reassessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011-2012 to the respondent herein, by way of a reply. - W.P.No.33790 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.39236, 39240 & 39243 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH For the Petitioner : Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan for Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy For the Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Standing counsel ORDER With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Nellore V. Official Liquidator and submitted that the purpose of treating a person connected with the management or administration of the Company as a Principal Officer is only to protect the interests of the revenue by compelling the person who is in a position to prepare and submit a return on behalf of the Company. Such being the intention of the Parliament, the present impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter a decision could be taken, it would be more appropriate and convenient for the further assessment proceedings. I am inclined to take this view since effective proceedings may not be possible with the petitioner as the Principal Officer, who had acted for a very short period as a Director and had retired thereafter. 5. In this background, the impugned order dated 26.11.2018, treating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
