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

1954 Supreme(All) 136

BHARGAVA
L. PARMESHWARI DAS – Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF BULANDSHAHR. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B. Dayal, for the applicants.
Standing Counsel, for the opposite parties.

ORDER

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the shareholders of the District Syndicate Bulandshahr, Limited, a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Sales tax has been assessed on this company for the assessment years 1948 and 1949. After the assessment, the Collector of Bulandshahr, who was entrusted with realising the amount of tax assessed as arrears of land revenue, is taking proceedings against the assets of these petitioners. The petitioners raised objection before the Collector, the main ground of objection being that proceedings could not be taken against their personal assets but could be taken only against the assets of the company. The Collector ordered these objections to be filed without dismissing them or allowing them on the ground that the report from the Sales Tax Officer was that departmental instructions had been issued for rateable realization from each shareholder. It is obvious that the proceedings, which are being taken by the Collector, are not justified in law. A limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is an entity separate and distinct from its shareholders. The shareholders, it has always been held, h


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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top