<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (4) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211650</link>
    <description>Excise arrears and penalty owed by a company could be recovered only from the company, as the recovery machinery under the Customs Act and the 1995 Recovery Rules applies to the defaulter and not to directors or shareholders. In the absence of an express statutory provision fastening personal liability, and with no pleaded basis to lift the corporate veil, the former director and the gifted property could not be proceeded against for the company&#039;s dues. Private arrangements could not create enforceable tax liability against third parties. The recovery notices and attachment proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211650</link>
      <description>Excise arrears and penalty owed by a company could be recovered only from the company, as the recovery machinery under the Customs Act and the 1995 Recovery Rules applies to the defaulter and not to directors or shareholders. In the absence of an express statutory provision fastening personal liability, and with no pleaded basis to lift the corporate veil, the former director and the gifted property could not be proceeded against for the company&#039;s dues. Private arrangements could not create enforceable tax liability against third parties. The recovery notices and attachment proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>