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

1987 Supreme(P&H) 351

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.P.Goyal, J.
Tikam Chand Jain
Versus
State Government Of Haryana
Civil Revision No. 309 of 1987,
Decided On : MAY 6, 1987

Directors are not personally liable for the company's tax dues in the absence of specific legal provisions.

Headnote:

Director's Liability - Sales Tax - Director's personal liability for company's tax dues

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a director in M/s. Swadesh Rubber Industries (P.) Ltd., filed a suit against the respondents to restrain them from enforcing the company's liability for State and Central Sales Tax against him. The respondents argued that as a director during the relevant period, the amount could be recovered from him. Both lower courts upheld the defence and declined the ad interim order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no provision in the Companies Act or the Sales Tax Act making the director personally liable for the company's dues. The court also cited a judgment holding that there is no provision in company law making the managing director personally liable for recovery of dues against the limited company. The courts below acted illegally due to a misconception of law, and the petition was allowed with the impugned order reversed.

Issues: The issue was whether the director could be held personally liable for the company's tax dues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of any provision in the relevant laws making the director personally liable for the company's tax dues.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was reversed, with no costs imposed.

Judgment

S. P. Goyal, J.

1. The petitioner, a director in M/s. Swadesh Rubber Industries (P.) Ltd. filed a suit against the respondents restraining them from enforcing the liability of the company against him on account of State and Central Sales Tax. Along with the suit, he also filed an application for an ad interim injunction to the same effect. The stand taken by the respondents was that he being the director of the company during the years when the amount became due, it could be recovered from him. Both the courts below upheld the defence and declined the ad interim order.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision of law either in the Companies Act or in the Sales Tax Act which made the director liable personally for the amount due from the company nor has been able to cite any authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of D. S. Tewatia J. in Civil Writ No.2010 of 1976 (Kundan Singh V/s. Moga Transport Co. P. Ltd.) decided on Aprils, 1983, [1987] 62 Comp Cas 600 (P and H), wherein it was held that neither in the company law nor in the Industrial Disputes Act is there any provision making the managing director personally liable for recovery of the dues against the limited company. It is, therefore, apparent that both the courts below because of misconception of law acted illegally in exercise of their jurisdiction in declining the prayer for issue of ad interim injunction. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order reversed. No costs.

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