Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2016 (7) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....valued added tax dues of R. 2.17 crores of one Different Solution Marketing Private Ltd., a company and to whom these petitioners are directors. 2. The said company is a registered dealer and is dealing in purchases and sales of steel. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax passed the said order attaching two residential properties of the petitioners on the ground that against the company in which they are directors, there is a possible tax, interest and penalty dues of Rs. 2.17 crores. In this order, he has recorded that upon perusal of the purchases made by the petitioner from one Nildhara Ltd. it appears that tin number of the said dealer has been cancelled, whereas the purchases made from Mercury Alloys, Gyscoal Alloys Ltd. And A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 51 VST 73. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Zaveri relied on sections 45 and 86 of the Valued Added Tax Act, 2003 to contend that the order passed by the authority was justified and proper. She submitted that there are large scale discrepancies in the purchases made by the petitioner for the said four entities. Input tax credit limit claimed by the petitioner therefore, is required to be denied. 6. At this stage, when the assessing proceedings concerning the dealer companies are still not finalised, it would not be possible or proper on our part to make any comments on the controversy regarding claim of the petitioners input tax credit on the purchases made from such ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....astened on the Directors who were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, but does not at all provide for any personal liability of the Directors to pay the salestax dues of the Company nor does it empower the authorities to proceed against the personal properties of the Directors. The very fact that the same Legislature has in the same Act provided for criminal liability of the Directors without providing for any personal liability of the Directors or their personal properties for payment of sales-tax dues of the Company in question, the provisions of Section 78 lend support to the case of the petitioners rather than the case of the authorities. 13. As regards the faint plea of lifting the corpora....