Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Section 44(6) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 could be invoked to fasten liability and sustain attachment of the petitioner's bank account where the defaulting entity was a public company and the petitioner was only a non-executive director.
Analysis: Section 44(6) is expressly made subject to the Companies Act, 2013. The expression "subject to" gives overriding effect to the latter statute in case of inconsistency. The Companies Act, 2013 draws a clear legal distinction between a private company and a public company through its definitional and incorporation provisions. Reading those provisions together, the liability contemplated by Section 44(6) is confined to directors of a private company and cannot be extended to a public company by implication. As the company in question was a public company, the statutory basis for fastening joint and several liability on the petitioner was absent, and the consequential bank attachment lacked legal sanction.
Conclusion: The invocation of Section 44(6) against the petitioner was unsustainable, and the attachment of the bank account could not be maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A liability provision in a tax statute that is expressly subject to the Companies Act and is confined to a private company cannot be applied to a public company or its director by analogy or implication.