Mukesh D. Ramani Indian Inhabitant vs State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1063

K.R.SHRIRAM, GAURI GODSE
Mukesh D. Ramani Indian Inhabitant – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sriram Sridharan
For the Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Mr. Himanshu Takke, Mr. Dushyant Kumar

Table of Content
1. corporate structure and history of financial issues (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 9)
2. petitioner's challenges to legal notices (Para 3 , 15)
3. liability of directors under tax law (Para 14 , 17 , 19)
4. statutory provisions vs. authority to recover tax dues (Para 18 , 22 , 24 , 26)
5. court's order in favor of petitioners (Para 34)

JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. With the consent of the parties taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself since pleadings are completed. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with.

2. Petitioners, long time ago were Directors of a company Twin City Organics Pvt. Ltd. (the company). Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are officers exercising powers under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 (the MGST Act) and the BOMBAY SALES TAX ACT , 1959 (the BST Act) and the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (the CST Act).

Facts in all the three petitions are almost identical save and except the dates on which petitioners joined the Board of Directors of the company and their date of resignation differ. The facts

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1063

K.R.SHRIRAM, GAURI GODSEMukesh D. Ramani Indian Inhabitant – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court – Respondent

K.R.SHRIRAM, GAURI GODSE
Mukesh D. Ramani Indian Inhabitant – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court – Respondent