<?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>Director shielded from sales tax recovery under s.18 CST Act due to unmet preconditions and long delay</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94512</link>
    <description>HC held that sales tax dues of the wound-up private company cannot presently be recovered from the petitioner-director under s.18 CST Act, as mandatory preconditions were not satisfied. While the company&#039;s winding up fulfilled the first statutory requirement, the respondent failed to establish or record any finding that non-recovery of dues was attributable to gross negligence, misfeasance, or breach of duty by the petitioner in relation to the company&#039;s affairs. The petitioner&#039;s contention that he was a young student at the relevant time and not responsible for such defaults remained unrefuted. Given the lapse of over 20 years and non-compliance with s.18 procedures, the writ petition was allowed, with liberty to the respondent to lodge its claim before the Official Liquidator and proceed afresh under s.18 CST Act in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:41:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:41:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Director shielded from sales tax recovery under s.18 CST Act due to unmet preconditions and long delay</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94512</link>
      <description>HC held that sales tax dues of the wound-up private company cannot presently be recovered from the petitioner-director under s.18 CST Act, as mandatory preconditions were not satisfied. While the company&#039;s winding up fulfilled the first statutory requirement, the respondent failed to establish or record any finding that non-recovery of dues was attributable to gross negligence, misfeasance, or breach of duty by the petitioner in relation to the company&#039;s affairs. The petitioner&#039;s contention that he was a young student at the relevant time and not responsible for such defaults remained unrefuted. Given the lapse of over 20 years and non-compliance with s.18 procedures, the writ petition was allowed, with liberty to the respondent to lodge its claim before the Official Liquidator and proceed afresh under s.18 CST Act in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:41:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>