TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Quashes Recovery Notice Against Director Due to Lack of Liability Provisions Under Uttarakhand VAT Act.</h1> <h3>Shankar Rudra Versus The State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.</h3> The SC allowed the appeal by M/s. SLR Impex Pvt. Ltd., quashing the recovery notice issued by the State Govt. of Uttarakhand under the Uttarakhand VAT ... Challenge to recovery notice - recovery of the dues of a Company from its Directors - alternative remedy under Section 287-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - HELD THAT:- On a plain reading of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the liability of the Directors of a private company will arise when a private company is wound up after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, Section 12 (1) will have no application as an order of winding up has not been produced. Therefore, when there was no provision under the Act under which dues of a limited company could have been recovered from its Directors, the third respondent was not justified in issuing the recovery certificate and demand notice against the appellant. These crucial factors have been ignored by the High Court. It ought to have been noted by the High Court that an attempt to recover tax payable by the Company from the appellant from its inception was illegal and, therefore, the appellant ought not to have been driven to the remedy of preferring an appeal. The impugned judgments and orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside. The notice of recovery dated 6th June, 2019 issued by the third respondent is hereby quash and set aside - Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s. SLR Impex Private Limited against a recovery notice issued by the State Government of Uttarakhand under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Court held that the recovery proceedings against the company's director were unjustified as there was no provision for recovering dues from directors under the Act. The recovery notice dated 6th June, 2019 was quashed and set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
