2013 (5) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tax Act and Central Sales Tax with the trade tax department. It carried on the business of manufacturer and sale of MG Craft paper. Initially there were seven directors of the company. On 3.7.1997, five more Directors were added and the strength was increased to 12 Directors. In addition to it, according to the petitioner, he became the Addl. Director of the company on 19.1.1998. It appears that Trade Tax Department framed assessment orders for the assessment year 1996-97 to 2000-01 under the UP Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The said assessment orders were ex parte order and they created a huge amount of tax liability on the Company. 3. The present writ petition is on behalf of Trilok Chand Gupta, who claims that he is an Addl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax dues against the company cannot be realized from the personal assets of the petitioner/Director. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed objections against the recovery certificate before respondent no. 2. The authority, without disposing of the objection of the petitioner, has proceeded to realize dues of the defaulter company from the personal assets of the petitioner. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has been stated that the dues against the Company can be recovered from its Directors. In this regard, a reference has been made to a de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....several. 11. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit shows that there is no pleading that the petitioner or any of the Directors of the company has committed any fraud or defrauded the revenue. In view of this, the decision relied upon in the case of Jagbir Singh (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present and is distinguishable. The said decision is based on the peculiar facts of that case. 13. We find that the petitioner has already filed a representation dated 2.2.2010 against the recovery notice, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The said representation was filed before the Deputy Commissio....