Director liability for company tax dues requires express statutory basis and winding up; coercive recovery was impermissible.

A private company's tax dues could not be recovered from its director absent an express statutory basis and without proof of winding up, because section 12(1) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act fastens director liability only when the company is wound up after commencement of the Act. The recovery certificate and demand notice against the director were therefore without legal foundation, and the High Court should not have directed recourse to an alternative remedy despite this jurisdictional defect. Coercive recovery from the director was impermissible, and the challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether tax dues assessed against a private company could be recovered from its director in the absence of any winding up order and without a statutory basis under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 12(1) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 fastens liability on the directors of a private company only when the company is wound up after the commencement of the Act. No winding up order was shown, and the record did not disclose any provision authorising recovery of the company's dues from its director. The recovery certificate and demand notice issued against the director therefore lacked legal foundation, and the High Court ought not to have driven the appellant to an alternative remedy in the face of this basic jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The recovery notice and the orders of the courts below were rightly interfered with; the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory provision enabling recovery of a private company's tax dues from its director, and where the statutory precondition of winding up is not met, coercive recovery against the director is impermissible.

---