Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>VAT authorities cannot attach directors' personal properties without establishing their personal liability under Section 46</h1> Gujarat HC quashed attachment orders targeting directors' personal properties under Gujarat VAT Act, 2003. Court held corporate veil cannot be lifted ... Attachment of personal properties of directors of a company under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - lifting of corporate veil - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that this very issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MR Choksi [2004 (6) TMI 642 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it has been held 'As regards the faint plea of lifting the corporate veil, as per the settled legal position, the corporate veil is not to be lifted lightly. It is only when there is strong factual foundation for lifting the corporate veil that the question of examining the applicability of the principle of lifting such veil would be required to be examined. In neither of the two petitions raising the controversy, the authorities have passed any specific order fastening the liability on the Directors personally, much less any factual foundation has been laid to invoke the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil. Hence it is not necessary to dilate on the said principle any further.' The present issue is no longer res integra and this Court has repeatedly and emphatically held that the personal properties of a Director cannot be attached to secure the dues of the Company. Besides, there is no factual foundation whatsoever, for this Court to lift the corporate veil and permit the respondents to go after the Directors of the Company, whose dues the respondents seek to secure by way of the attachment in question. The impugned attachment orders dated 19.01.2013, 17.02.2014 as well as attachment order dated 01.05.2015 are hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed. The Gujarat High Court considered a case involving the attachment of personal properties of directors of a company under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The key issues presented and considered in the judgment are:1. Whether the personal properties of directors can be attached for the dues of the company.2. The validity and legality of the attachment orders issued by the Respondent authorities.3. The interpretation of Sections 45 and 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Section 154 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.4. The application of the principle of lifting the corporate veil in this context.In the detailed analysis, the Court examined the legal framework and precedents, including the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and relevant case law. The Court interpreted the law, reasoning that there is no provision empowering tax authorities to hold directors personally liable for the company's tax dues. The Court emphasized that the corporate veil should not be lifted lightly and highlighted the lack of factual basis for attaching directors' personal properties in this case.Key evidence and findings included the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Aditya J. Pandya, arguing that directors have separate legal existence from the company and that the attachment orders exceeded the mandate of the relevant statutory provisions. The Respondents contended that the attachment orders were justified due to non-payment of dues by the company.The Court applied the law to the facts by analyzing the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Bombay Land Revenue Code in light of the specific circumstances of the case. Competing arguments were considered, with the Respondents asserting the validity of the attachment orders based on the company's outstanding dues.In its conclusions, the Court referenced previous judgments, including MR Choksi Vs. State of Gujarat, Different Solution Marketing (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and Manharlal Hirjibhai Virdiya Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, which established that personal properties of directors cannot be attached to secure company dues. The Court quashed and set aside the attachment orders dated 09.01.2013, 17.02.2014, and 01.05.2015, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The judgment reiterated that there was no legal basis for holding directors personally liable for the company's tax obligations and emphasized the importance of upholding the separate legal identity of directors and companies.The significant holdings of the judgment include the core principle that personal properties of directors cannot be attached to secure company dues, as established by precedent and statutory interpretation. The final determination was in favor of the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the attachment orders in question.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found