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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 98

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN
Chamundeeswari & Another
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer, Vellore Rural, Vellore
Writ Petitions No.3085 of 2000 and 3086 of 2000
Decided On : 05-01-2007

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:G. Sumithra, Advocate. For the Respondent:A. Shanmugasundaram, Government Advocate.

A company is a separate legal entity, and any tax dues must be recovered only from the company and not from its directors.

Headnote:

Distraint Proceedings - Recovery of Sales Tax - Companies Act 1956 - State Financial Corporation Act, 1995 - Revenue Recovery Act - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Section 19A - Section 19B - Legal Entity of Company - Liability of Directors - High Court Decisions

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged distraint proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Officer to recover sales tax arrears from the directors of a public limited company. The petitioners argued that the company was no longer in existence and that there was no provision in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to recover tax from its directors.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that a company is a separate legal entity and any dues from the company must be recovered only from the company and not from its directors. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petitions.

Issues: The issues involved the liability of directors for sales tax arrears of a company, the legal entity of a company, and the applicability of relevant provisions in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various High Court decisions to establish that a company is a distinct legal entity and that there is no provision in the statute to hold directors personally liable for the tax due from the company.

Final Decision: The court set aside the distraint proceedings and allowed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the recovery of tax dues must be made from the company and not from its directors.

Judgment :-

The petitioners have put in issue the distraint proceedings initiated by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer to recover a sum of Rs.31,03,345/- towards arrears of sales tax for the assessment years from 1991-92 to 1994-95. It is the case of the petitioners that the assessee is the public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 under the certificate No.12819 of 1986 amended on 111. 1987. The company and its factory have been taken possession by the Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1995 and the company is no more in existence. Further, the petitioners have also resigned from the directorship on and from 18.06.1996 and 23.05.1996 respectively and to that effect resolution has been passed by the directors of the company. As such from that dates the petitioners ceased to be the directors of the company. All of a sudden, proceedings under section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act has been issued against the petitioners. There is absolutely no provision whatsoever in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to recover the tax due in respect of a company from its directors, as it is well recognised that a company is a separate legal entity by itself and if any recovery has to be made from the company, that has to be done against the properties of the company and not against the properties of its directors. On this ground, the writ petition has been filed challenging the distraint proceedings.

2. Mr.Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel for the Government argued for sustaining the orders by submitting that the company can be treated as Association of Persons and as such and under section 19A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act proceedings can be initiated against the persons who asserted themselves as Association of persons.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and went through the relevant provisions in the statute.

4. On hearing the counsel on either side, I am afraid, the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent by the learned Government Advocate can be accepted. It is well settled that a company is a legal entity by itself and it can sue or can be sued as a legal entity and any dues from the company has to be recovered only from the company and not from its directors. Section 19A of the Act cannot be taken assistance by the respondent for sustaining the order, which provides for the liability to tax of partitioned Hindu family, dissolved firm. Even section 19B of the Act, which provides for liability to tax private company on winding up, cannot be invoked.

5. In this regard, useful reference can be had to the decisions of various High Courts, which are as follows:

In the case of Desiraju Venkatakrishna Sarma, In re, (1955) XXV Company Cases 32, Andhra Pradesh High Court has, in similar circumstance, held that a company is a body corporate and can be made liable for payment of taxes in respect of taxes payable by it. There is no personal obligation on the shareholders on the directors of a limited company in respect of the debts, or the taxes, revenue, etc., due from the company. The Managing Director or other directors of a limited liability company cannot be proceeded against as regards recovery of arrears of sales tax payable by the company.

In the case of Lalita Shivaram Ubhaykar v. CTO, XII Circle, Bangalore, (1975) 35 STC 267, in which the company committed default in payments of sales tax due from it and the authorities proceeded against the petitioner who was its director, for recovery of the sales tax dues, the High Court of Karnataka has held that there is no provision in the statute which authorises recovery of arrears due from a company by proceedings against its director.

In the case of Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, ((1984) 55 STC 209), the High Court of Kerala held that there is no provision of law which enables the revenue to proceed against a Director of a c




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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