9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sthi,Ramesh Chandra Shukla ORDER 1. List revised. 2. Heard Shri Anil Prakash Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the State. None has appeared on behalf of the Central GST. 3. The petitioner is the erstwhile Director of a private corporation, namely, M/s Alankar Ispat (P) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). He claims to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard, in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the writ petition. Those read as below: "11. That the petitioner had not given any personal guarantee for the dues of the company to the respondents. 13. That it may be submitted that there is no specific provision in the Central Excise Act where under recovery of liability out-standing against the company can be made/ recovered from the personal assets of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he name of such entity/company." 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, there is no denying that there is complete lack of any enabling law that may allow the Central Excise Authority to recover any part of demand raised against the Company from the personal assets of the petitioner. Merely because such demand may have remained outstanding against the Company woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is clearly non-speaking. Despite specific objection raised by the petitioner and despite taking notice of the same, no reason has been noted in the impugned order to recover the dues of the Company from the personal assets of the petitioner. Consequently, the order dated 17.12.2021 is set aside leaving it open to the Central Excise Authority to proceed strictly in accordance with law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
