<?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>2022 (9) TMI 385 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427440</link>
    <description>Former directors could not be fastened with company sales tax dues under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 through Section 142(8) of the Maharashtra GST Act, because transitional recovery under that provision presupposes that recovery was already legally available under the earlier statute; the old Act created no personal liability for directors, so indirect imposition was impermissible. Recovery was also unsustainable under Section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the pari materia Section 89 of the Maharashtra GST Act, since the authority failed to record a reasoned finding that non-recovery from the company was due to the directors&#039; gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty, and acted after inordinate delay without adequate justification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 385 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427440</link>
      <description>Former directors could not be fastened with company sales tax dues under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 through Section 142(8) of the Maharashtra GST Act, because transitional recovery under that provision presupposes that recovery was already legally available under the earlier statute; the old Act created no personal liability for directors, so indirect imposition was impermissible. Recovery was also unsustainable under Section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the pari materia Section 89 of the Maharashtra GST Act, since the authority failed to record a reasoned finding that non-recovery from the company was due to the directors&#039; gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty, and acted after inordinate delay without adequate justification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>