TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents from attaching or selling any private property of the Managing Director of the Company for realization of the aforesaid dues. Petition allowed. - R/Special Civil Application No. 12733 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2021 - Honourable Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajendra M. Sareen For the Petitioner(s) : Tirth Nayak For the Respondent(s) : Advance Copy Served To Government Pleader/PP ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN) 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.05.2019 whereby the respondent No.1 passed order attaching the personal property of the petitioner purportedly for the outstanding dues of the Company as well as the action of the respondent No.3 dated 21.05.2019 whereby the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inter-alia calling upon the petitioner to raise objections, if any. The petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs : 7.0. The Petitioner therefore prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to: (A) Issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 15.06.2015 issued by the Respondent No.1. 2.7. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 10.05.2019 calling upon the petitioner to remain present and produce relevant information failing which necessary steps in respect of attachment of assets and bank accounts may be taken. 2.8. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner once again remained personally present before the respondent No.1 and disclosed all facts in the knowledge of the petitioner to the Respondent No.1. 2.9. It is the case of the petitioner, however, the respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 17.05.2019 to the respondent No.1 informing him about the outstanding dues of the said Company and requesting the respondent No.4 to immediately earmark the lien on all the properties belonging to the petitioner. 2.10. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 21.05.2019 to the Petitioner under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 calling upon the petitioner to raise objections, if any, in respect of the said action of the respondent No.4. The petitioner submitted his written objections dated 11.06.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned action of the Respondents in earmarking a lien over the personal property of the Petitioner is ex-facie arbitrary, contrary to law and based on the irrelevant considerations. 6.1. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that it is an admitted case that the demand of ₹ 2.37 crores is against the said Company in respect of the outstanding commercial tax payable by the said Company. Therefore, the said Company which is a separate legal entity then the property of the Petitioner cannot be attached for the dues of the said Company. It is submitted that the property of the Petitioner was attached because the petitioner was a director of the said Company. However, the said property is admittedly solely belonging to the Petitioner and therefore, the action of the Respondents against the Petitioner to attach his property because the Petitioner was a director in the said Company is contrary to law and ex facie illegal. 6.02. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that it is clear from the impugned order at Annexure-A that the respondents have proceeded on the presumption that the said Company is a partnership concern and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocates for the respective parties and considering the material on record, it appears that it is not the case of the State that the property in question at any point of time belonged to the company nor is it the case that. The only question that arises for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether for the purpose of recovery of sales tax dues under The Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and Gujarat Sales Tax Act against Gujarat against a private limited company, the personal property belonging to the Managing Director of such company can be attached. 8.1. The Co-ordinate Bench while considering the similar issue, relying upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.243 of 1991 with Special Civil Application No.3103 of 1991 and Special Civil Application No.7578 of 1991 in the case of Mr.Choksi Vs. State of Gujarat , has allowed the said petition and quashed and set aside the impugned notification by holding that the auction of the residential property in question as illegal and bad in law and restrained the respondents from attaching or selling any private property of the Managing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
