https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354172 A company remained the separate legal person liable for its VAT dues, and recovery could not be directed against directors' personal assets merely because notices were issued to them. The Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 fastened liability on the company, while director liability under the provision relied on by the revenue arose only in liquidation. In the absence of liquidation, fraud, misrepresentation, or any statutory basis to lift the corporate veil, mechanical notices treating directors as automatically liable were unsupported and personal recovery was impermissible. en-us Thu, 07 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 16:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354172 A company remained the separate legal person liable for its VAT dues, and recovery could not be directed against directors' personal assets merely because notices were issued to them. The Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 fastened liability on the company, while director liability under the provision relied on by the revenue arose only in liquidation. In the absence of liquidation, fraud, misrepresentation, or any statutory basis to lift the corporate veil, mechanical notices treating directors as automatically liable were unsupported and personal recovery was impermissible. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354172