TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed and consequently, notices Annexures quashed with cost of Rs. 10000. - Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - 7489 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2007 - M.M. Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Jain, JJ. Shri Vikas Awasthi, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Garg Narwana, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.]. - The point for consideration in this petition is as to whether a Director of a Company can be made personally liable for the amount due from the Company for the arrears of State and Central sales tax? 2. The petitioner is the Director of M/s. Agni Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 2 served a show cause notice dated 22-12-2005 (Annexure P-1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Sales Tax Act. (Liability of Directors of Private Company in Liquidation) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). When any private company is wound up after the commencement of this Act, and any tax assessed on the company under this Act for any period, whether before or in the course of or after its liquidation, cannot be recovered, then every person who was a director of the private company at any time during the period for which the tax is due shall be jointly and severally be 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." 5. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. We are afraid that the provisions quoted by the learned counsel for the respondents are not attracted to the controversy in hand because as a matter of fact the company is still not wound up or formally liquidated. Besides the above, no other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents nor the law laid down by the Division Bench in the cases of Suneet Khurana and Mukesh Gupta (supra) has been controverted by citing any authority to the contrary. 10. Therefore, we are in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the view that the notices Annexures P/1 and P/3 are not only illegal but also arbitrary and whimsical as the same have been issued on 22-12-2005 in spit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
