IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, DEVAN M. DESAI, JJ.
Prince Mansukhbhai Hirani – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 204 Of 2021
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Companies Act, 1956 – Section 394(2) – Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Quashing and setting aside impugned – Proceedings of attachment or creation of a charge – Criminal liability – Communications and directions – Default in payment of Tax – Held, Very fact that same Legislature has in same Act provided for criminal liability of Directors without providing for any personal liability of Directors or their personal properties for payment of sales-tax dues of Company in question, provisions of Section 78 lend support to case of petitioners rather than case of authorities – It is only when there is strong factual foundation for lifting corporate veil that question of examining applicability of principle of lifting such veil would be required to be examined – In neither of two petitions raising controversy, authorities have passed any specific order fastening liability on Directors personally, much less any factual foundation has been laid to invoke doctrine of lifting corporate veil – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Biren Vaishnav, J.)
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following prayers:
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in Nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the communication/order dtd.03.08.2019 passed by the City Survey Superintendent, Rajkot (Annexure-A) in the interest of justice;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in Nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the two orders dated 17.06.2019 mutating Entry no.8056 and Entry no.8057 (Annexure-B1, Annexure-B2) passed by the Ld. City Survey Superintendent, Rajkot in the interest of justice;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in Nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction by directing the respondent Authorities to allow the application dtd.13.03.2019 (Annexure-C) and further mutate the names of the petitioners in the City Survey records for land bearing survey Ward no.14, City Survey no.465 and 469 admeasuring 483-39 sq. mtrs including the construction on area admeasuring 34-04 sq. mtrs. Situated at Bhilvaas, Rajkot in the interest of justice;
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in Nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 11.06.2019 passed by the State Tax Officer, Circle 5, Unit 94, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Gujarat-State) (Annexure- D) in the interest of justice;
(F)Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of:
i. the communication/order dtd.03.08.2019 passed by the City Survey Superintendent, Rajkot (Annexure-A);
ii. the order dated 17.06.2019 mutating Entry no.8056 (Annexure-B1, Annexure-B2) passed by the Ld. City Survey Superintend, Rajkot;
iii. The order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the State Tax Officer, Circle 5, Unit 94, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Gujarat-State) (Annexure-D);”
2. Facts in brief are as under.
3. The petitioners is the purchaser of the property being land bearing Survey Ward no.14, City Survey Number 465 and no.469 admeasuring 483-39 sq.mtrs including construction on area admeasuring 34-04 sq.mtrs situated at Bhilvaas, Rajkot.
4. The property originally belonged to Mr.Manishkumar Rasiklal Bavariya who had in turn become the owner by virtue of a will bequeathing the property to him by his father. The administrator of the Will had also obtained the letter of administration from the Civil Court.
5. The property was purchased by the petitioners after executing a Registered Sale Deed on 26.02.2019 prior to which on 13.09.2017, a Registered Agreement to Sell was executed.
6. On 13.3.2019 the petitioners field an application praying for mutation of their names for the lands in question pursuant to the execution of the sale deed. Such application was made in consonance with the provisions of Section 135C of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
7. On 17.06.2019 the City Survey Superintendent, Rajkot passed orders whereby Entry No.8056 and 8057 is mutated in the City Survey records recording Charge on the properties owned by the petitioners on the ground that there has been default in payment of Tax under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT, 2003) committed by Eagle Motors Private Limited wherein the seller was one of the Directors. This order was passed by the City Survey Superintendent on account of order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the Tax Authority directing the Superintendent to register a charge on the properties of the Directors of Eagle Motors Private Ltd.
8. By a communication dated 03.08.3019 the objections raised by th
Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel vs. Kanchanben N. Patel and others reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2233
Tax Recovery Officer II v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade
Point of Law - Section 78 specifically deal with offence by companies and the criminal liability is fastened on the Directors who were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the busines....
Directors are not personally liable for a company's tax dues unless proven negligent; recovery against a deceased director is unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Surat Municipal Corporation cannot claim any first charge or precedence over the subject property for recovering property tax arrears, as ....
Directors can only be liable for tax dues if the company has no recoverable assets and negligence is proven; procedural fairness in claims against past Directors is essential.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any additional differential premium and the Sales Tax Department could not claim ....
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.