2026 (4) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have challenged the recovery notices dated 22.08.2023 issued to the Petitioners, whereby, the Bank Accounts of the Petitioners were attached for the tax liability of one Tvl.KLN Motor Agencies Pvt. Ltd., 3. The Petitioners are the Directors of Tvl.KLN Motor Agencies Pvt. Ltd, which is in arrears of GST. It appears that the said Company has also been ordered to be wound-up by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (in short, NCLT) vide Order dated 07.03.2024 in CP/34/CHE/2023. 4. The case of the Petitioners is that the impugned Orders dated 22.08.2023 passed by the first Respondent seeking to attach the Bank Account of the respective Petitioners for dues of the aforesaid Company is without jurisdiction, as no notice was issued to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e learned Special Government Pleader for the first Respondent to Paragraph No.21 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Maganbhai Hansrajbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (cited supra), which reads as follows:- ''To our mind, the authority completely failed to appreciate in proper perspective the requirement of section 179(1) of the Act. We may recall that said provision provides for a vicarious liability of the director of a public company for payment of tax dues which cannot be recovered from the company. However, such liability could be avoided if the director proves that the non recovery cannot be attributed to any gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company. It....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... regarding the gross negligence on part of the petitioner due to which the tax dues from the company could not be recovered. In absence of any such consideration, the Assistant Commissioner could not have ordered recovery of dues of the company from the director. We would clarify that in the present case the petitioner had putforth a strong representation to the proposal of recovery of tax from him under section 179 of the Act. In such representation, he had detailed the steps taken by him and the circumstances due to which non recovery of tax cannot be attributed to his gross neglect. It was this representation and the factors which the petitioner had putforth before the Assistant Commissioner which had to be taken into account before the ....