https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18249 Recovery under section 179 of the Income-tax Act was upheld where notice was served, a reply was filed, and the director had clear knowledge of the proceedings; the natural justice challenge therefore failed. Liability was also sustained because section 179 applies to a person who was a director at any time during the relevant previous year, so later resignation did not defeat responsibility for the company's tax arrears after recovery from the company proved unsuccessful. Pendency of the company's revision petition did not bar recovery in the absence of a stay, and the salary attachment objection under section 60 CPC was rejected, subject to the exempted portion of salary. en-us Fri, 24 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:40:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18249 Recovery under section 179 of the Income-tax Act was upheld where notice was served, a reply was filed, and the director had clear knowledge of the proceedings; the natural justice challenge therefore failed. Liability was also sustained because section 179 applies to a person who was a director at any time during the relevant previous year, so later resignation did not defeat responsibility for the company's tax arrears after recovery from the company proved unsuccessful. Pendency of the company's revision petition did not bar recovery in the absence of a stay, and the salary attachment objection under section 60 CPC was rejected, subject to the exempted portion of salary. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18249