TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 passed order attaching the personal property of the petitioner purportedly for the outstanding dues of the Company as well as the action of the respondent No.3 dated 21.05.2019 whereby the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inter-alia calling upon the petitioner to raise objections, if any. The petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs : "7.0. The Petitioner therefore prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to: (A) Issue a writ of certiorari: (i) quash and set aside the impugned action of the Respondents whereby a lien is earmarked on the property of the Petitioner being Survey No.205, Ward No.2, District Rajkot ad-m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g upon the petitioner to disclose additional facts of the said Company. 2.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner replied to the said letter vide his letter dated 18.06.2015 whereby the Petitioner informed the respondent No.1 that the personal property of the petitioner cannot be attached in view of the judgement of this Hon'ble Court. 2.6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner also addressed a letter dated 18.06.2015 to the Manager, Central Bank of India, requesting the said Bank to disclose the relevant information in respect of the property of the said Company mortgaged with the said Bank in order to enable the petitioner to reply to the said notice dated 15.06.2015 issued by the Respondent No.1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jections, a lien was earmarked on the said property belonging to the petitioner on 26.06.2019. 2.12. It is the case of the petitioner that the said property is the personal property of the petitioner and respondents have on a premise that the said Company is a partnership firm and the petitioner is a partner therein attached the property belonging to the petitioner. However, the same is on an entirely wrong premise. According to the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the said Company is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and for this reason alone, the Petitioner's property cannot be attached for the dues of the said Company. Hence, the petitioner has preferred present petition for the aforesaid reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that it is an admitted case that the demand of Rs. 2.37 crores is against the said Company in respect of the outstanding commercial tax payable by the said Company. Therefore, the said Company which is a separate legal entity then the property of the Petitioner cannot be attached for the dues of the said Company. It is submitted that the property of the Petitioner was attached because the petitioner was a director of the said Company. However, the said property is admittedly solely belonging to the Petitioner and therefore, the action of the Respondents against the Petitioner to attach his property because the Petitioner was a director in the said Company is contrary to law and ex fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ian Versus C.A. Patel rendered in Special Civil Application No.1853 of 2012 decided on 21.03.2012 as well as decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mr.Choksi Versus State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.243 of 1991 and allied matters. 7. Learned AGP Mr.Soham Joshi has emphasized on the main issue that since the arrears of sales tax could not be recovered from the Company, the respondent authorities have taken recourse under section 78 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and in light of the said provision that where an offence has been committed by Company for the conduct of the business of the Company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence and shall be liable to be proceeded aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dents from attaching or selling any private property of the Managing Director of the Company for realization of the aforesaid dues. Relevant findings and observations of the aforesaid decisions are as follows: "12. .....The section 78 specifically deal with offence by companies and the criminal liability is fastened 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 sales-tax 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 Direct....