SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Cal) 616

High Court Of Calcutta
Ajoy Nath Ray
GURUDAS HAZRA - Appellant
Versus
P.K.CHOWDHURY - Respondent
W. P.  1957  Of  1999
Decided On : 12/01/1999

Directors of private companies are jointly and severally liable for unpaid tax debts of the company unless they can prove that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to their gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Liability of directors of private company in liquidation - Section 179 of the Income-tax Act - Director's liability for unpaid tax debts of the company - Attachment of personal bank account - Legality.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a 73-year-old individual, challenged a notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer freezing his personal bank account due to unpaid tax debts of H. Guru Instruments Private Limited, a company of which he was a managing director.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 179 of the Income-tax Act imposes a heavy burden on directors of private companies to prove that the non-recovery of the company's tax debts cannot be attributed to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on their part.

Issues: 1. Whether the attachment of the writ petitioner's personal bank account for unpaid tax debts of the company was legal. 2. Whether the director had been given a hearing before the Tax Recovery Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 179 of the Income-tax Act imposes joint and several liability on directors of private companies for unpaid tax debts of the company unless they can prove that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to their gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty. 2. The director had not taken the initiative to obtain a hearing before the Tax Recovery Officer or to provide relevant documents to show that he had not breached any duty.

Final Decision: The writ petition was summarily rejected, but the court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the writ petitioner's case if he approached the Tax Recovery Officer to satisfy him that there was no default of duty on his part.

AJOY NATH RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioner challenges a notice dated October 12, 1999, by which the Tax Recovery Officer from Calcutta requested the State Bank of India, Bela Industrial Estate Branch, Muzaffarpur, to freeze the bank account maintained there by M/s. H. Guru Industries.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, who is 73 years old, that is his proprietorship business, is completely separate from H. Guru Instruments Private Limited, of which, however, he was a managing director at the material time.

( 3 ) MR. Mitter submits for the writ petitioner that even if there are dues of or in regard to income-tax of the company, the stoppage of the bank account of the writ petitioner himself is illegal.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to him, for unpaid tax debts of the company, such attachment has the effect of prohibiting the carrying on of business by the writ petitioner himself altogether for all times in future unless the company's debts are met.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the Revenue, affidavits are prayed for, interim order is opposed and reliance is placed on Section 179 of the Income-tax Act. That Section is as follows :"179. Liability of directors of private company in liquidation.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), (where any tax due from a private company in respect of any income of any previous year or from any other company in respect of any income of any previous year during which such other company was a private company) cannot be recovered, then, every person who was a director of the private company at any time during the relevant previous year shall be jointly and severally 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. (2) Where a private company is converted into a public company and the tax assessed in respect of any income of any previous year during which such company was a private company cannot be recovered, then, nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall apply to any person who was a director of such private company in relation to any tax due in respect of any income of such private company assessable for any assessment year commencing before the first day of April, 1962. "

( 6 ) THE marginal note or heading of the Section is misleading, because the body applies now to companies, whether those are in liquidation or not.

( 7 ) RELIANCE is also placed on Rule 4 contained in the Second Schedule to the Act, which provides for the mode of recovery. That rule is as follows :"4. Mode of recovery.--If the amount mentioned in the notice is not paid within the time specified therein or within such further time as the Tax Recovery Officer may grant in his discretion, the Tax Recovery Officer shall proceed to realise the amount by one or more of the following modes : (a) by attachment and sale of the defaulter's movable property ; (b) by attachment and sale of the defaulter's immovable property ; (c) by arrest of the defaulter and his detention in prison ; (d) by appointing a receiver for the management of the defaulter's movable and immovable properties. "

( 8 ) FROM the Section it is clear that if at the material time a person was a director of the defaulting company, his duty before the Revenue is very heavy, he is to prove that the non-recovery of the company's tax debts cannot be attributed to (i) any gross neglect, (ii) misfeasance or (iii) breach of duty on his part.

( 9 ) THE third item, viz. , breach of duty is a very wide expression.

( 10 ) MR. Mitter submitted that there has been no determination of the director writ petitioner's liability in regard to the company's tax debts under Section 179 yet. Section 179 does not specifically provide for any determination or any hearing. But hearing and determination are to be read into the section, according to the principles of natural justice and the law in this regard is w









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top