JUDGMENT

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Originally the present petition was filed before this Court in the year 2005 seeking the following relief:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificates, issued by the respondent no.3 on the direction of respondent no.4 (Annexure-4).

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and restraining them from recovery of the amount against the company from the personal assets of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

(c) Issue such other and further writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. After exchange of the affidavits, the writ Court proceeded to dismiss the writ petition vide its order dated 20th September, 2012. In doing so, the co-ordinate bench of this Court noted the earlier law on the subject-lifting of corporate veil, to enforce the tax liability of a corporate entity on its directors and other functionaries etc. While dismissing the writ petition, the co-ordinate bench made the following observations:-

"28. In the present case from the material on record, there is no doubt that the petitioners and other directors persuaded the BIFR to allow them to run the sick industrial company with fresh infusion of funds from IFCI with two nominee directors of IFCI. The company started business in 1991. The application for eligibility certificate under Section 4-A was made with false declaration that the plant and machinery is new. The eligibility certificate was not granted. Initially the company was doing well but as soon as Shri I.S. Gambhir and Shri L.K. Luthra took over successively as Managing Directors of the company, they started defrauding in payment of sales tax both State and Central; the excise dues and electricity dues. They incurred liability of several crores of rupees and did not participate in the proceedings of assessment. The date, when the company again stopped production, has not come on record. However, it is clear from the material placed before us, that the company started production with fresh capital given by IFCI, only to defraud the secured creditors to avoid taxes and electricity dues. The directors of the company hiding behind the corporate veil made use of the corporate entity under the umbrella of BIFR to circumvent statutes, commit illegality and evade the liability of payment of taxes, central excise dues and electricity dues. The returns were not filed. The entire amount was utilised for personal gains. The directors used the State resources for enriching themselves. They robbed the coffers of the State while sitting in Delhi. The corporate veil under the patronage of BIFR was used as subterfuge to avoid payment of taxes. In the facts and circumstances we do not find any good ground to interfere with the recoveries from the personal assets of the petitioners."

4. The petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.852 of 2021 ( A.S. Solanki v. State of U.P. and others). In the connected matter being Writ Tax No.1464 of 2005 ( Jagbir Singh v. State of U.P. and others) similar facts exist. It met the same fate. That order (of this Court) came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.853 of 2021.

5. Both Civil Appeal Nos.852 of 2021 and 853 of 2021 were disposed of