<?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>Court Rules Against Improper Bank Account Attachment for Former Director in Tax Recovery Dispute.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76749</link>
    <description>Recovery of tax arrears from the Former director of the Company - Attachment of Bank accounts - DIN of the petitioner got disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - The High Court found that the attachment order was issued without proper consideration of the petitioner&#039;s status and without affording them an opportunity to present their case. The court held that this violated the petitioner&#039;s rights under Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution. - The High Court accepted the petitioner&#039;s argument that they had resigned from their directorship before the relevant period. As such, the court ruled that the petitioner could not be held liable for the company&#039;s tax dues during that period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:03:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:03:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules Against Improper Bank Account Attachment for Former Director in Tax Recovery Dispute.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76749</link>
      <description>Recovery of tax arrears from the Former director of the Company - Attachment of Bank accounts - DIN of the petitioner got disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - The High Court found that the attachment order was issued without proper consideration of the petitioner&#039;s status and without affording them an opportunity to present their case. The court held that this violated the petitioner&#039;s rights under Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution. - The High Court accepted the petitioner&#039;s argument that they had resigned from their directorship before the relevant period. As such, the court ruled that the petitioner could not be held liable for the company&#039;s tax dues during that period.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:03:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>