The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assessing Officer must disclose the necessary jurisdictional facts and the steps taken to recover tax dues from the delinquent company in the show cause notices and the impugned order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act.

JUDGMENT

Valmiki Sa Menezes, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties present before us and who have waived service of notice, the petition is heard finally.

2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing and setting aside of show cause notices under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act,1961, (for short 'the Act') dated 15.10.2019, 24.02.2020, 19.03.2020, 04.12.2020 and order dated 14.12.2020 issued by the respondent No.2, as being contrary to law.

3. It is the petitioner's case as averred in the petition, that he had received show cause notices dated 24.02.2020, 19.03.2020 and 04.12.2020 from the respondent No.2 purportedly invoking powers under Section 179 of the Act. He further avers that the issuance of a similar notice dated 15.10.2019 also impugned herein by the respondents came to his knowledge from the reply filed by the respondents, which notice he claims, was never served upon him. The petitioner has averred that he had filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 19.03.2020 to the income tax authorities stating therein that the petitioner had not attended any Board meetings of M/s. White Water Park India Private Ltd. (for short 'the Company') during the financial year 2006-07 till date, nor handled any income tax assessment of the said company for the Assessment Year 2007-08 as its Director. He claims that under the provisions of Section 283 of the Companies Act, 1956, as also under the provisions of Section 167 of the Companies Act, 2013, since, he has not attended three consecutive meetings of the Board of Directors of the said company or for that the matter, all meetings of Board of Directors during the period of 12 months without seeking leave, he is deemed to have vacated the Office of Director of the said company. According to the petitioner, as he was not the Director of the Company, he was not liable to receive any notice under Section 179 of the Act, which provision can be invoked only against a Director of a private Company.

4. It is further the petitioner's contention that he has filed before this Court an affidavit dated 01.02.2022, reiterating the facts stated by him in his affidavit-in-reply before the respondent No.2 dated 19.03.2020 in answered to the show cause notice. He further submits that neither the show cause notice issued to him nor the order dated 14.12.2020 issued under Section 179 of the Act, states the steps taken by the respondents to recover tax dues from the company. It is the petitioner's submission that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to demonstrate by referring to material before it, and by making specific references to such material as to the steps taken by it, and also state such facts in its show cause notice, and refer to the same in the impugned order. The petitioner submits that the failure to aver the steps taken by it to recover tax dues from the company or failure to make disclosures in the show cause notice of the material which constituted the steps taken by the department against the company, would render the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 contrary to the provisions of Section 179 of the Act. Amongst the grounds taken by the petitioner to lay a challenge to the impugned show cause notices and the impugned order, is also the ground that facts which are required to be disclosed in the show cause notices and in the impugned order are steps taken to recover tax dues from the company, which are missing and therefore, the respondents would have no jurisdiction to proceed with an action under Section 179 of the Act.

5. After notice was issued to the respondents, therespondent Nos.1 and 2 came to file an affidavit-in-reply dated 16.02.2021 to which are attached certain documents, which the petitioner averred, are supplied to the respondents by one Mr.Samir Savjani, a Director of the said company. A further affidavit-in-reply was filed by the respondents on 26.02.2022 which the petitione