2014 (8) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. For the assessment year 1994-1995, an order came to be passed on 31.03.1998. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, which came to be dismissed for non-depositing of admitted tax and by holding that appeal is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No.242/1999. Appeal came to be allowed, matter was remanded back to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for passing orders afresh after on merits-affording opportunity to the petitioner. After the matter was remanded, though notices came to be issued to the assessee, it did not appear. As such, appeal came to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....found in the original file made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 4. Contention of Mr. J.S. Shetty is as under:            (i) Impugned attachment of property of the petitioner is without notice to the petitioner,         (ii) Petitioner was a Director of the Company from 1996 and as he is not the proprietor, he is not personally liable for the liability of the Company that too for the period anterior to his becoming Director of the Company,        (iii) Even otherwise, petitioner being a Director of a Company cannot be made personally liable to answer the liability of the Company except to the extent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the Act so as to fasten the entire liability on any one of the Directors of the company to recover the amounts due in respect of the erstwhile assessee-Company. The records would indicate that 1st respondent has called upon 2nd respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against the 'assessee' for recovering tax due from assessee-company subsequent to revised demand raised on 07.1.0.2008. Tahsildar has been intimated by the 1st respondent that petitioner is the owner of the erstwhile Company. To arrive at such a conclusion, there was no material whatsoever available before the 1st respondent. 7. Undisputedly, petitioner was only a Director of the Company and as such, proceedings initiated for mutating the revenue records in the ....