Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case

13 November 2024 7:47 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Telangana High Court quashed an order issued against Sri Subba Rao Pavuluri, a director of a private company, in a tax recovery case under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court ruled that the order, passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, violated principles of natural justice.

The bench, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, held that under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, a director can only be held personally liable for a company’s unpaid taxes if they fail to prove that the non-recovery was not due to their gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty. The court stressed that the director must be given an opportunity to present their case before such liability is imposed.

“The petitioner could have proved that the non-recovery of tax was not attributable to his conduct only if he was given notice and an opportunity to explain.”

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax issued an order on March 7, 2023, holding Pavuluri liable for the tax dues of his company. The tax authorities proceeded under Section 179, which allows them to recover unpaid taxes from directors of private companies. Pavuluri, however, challenged the order in the High Court, arguing that he was not given any notice before the order was passed, preventing him from presenting his defense.

The petitioner relied on a Gujarat High Court ruling in Susan Chacko Perumal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2017), which had set aside a similar order on the grounds of natural justice, emphasizing that the director must be given notice and an opportunity to prove that the non-recovery of taxes was not due to their misconduct.

The court rejected the tax department's argument that no notice was required before issuing an order under Section 179. Referring to Supreme Court rulings in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and other cases, the bench reiterated that natural justice principles must be followed in taxation matters where an individual’s personal liability is in question.

“The absence of notice renders the process faulty, and such an order, passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained.”

The Telangana High Court set aside the impugned order dated March 7, 2023, and allowed the income tax department to reinitiate proceedings, provided it follows the principles of natural justice. The court granted the revenue authorities liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and pass a new order based on a fair hearing.
 

Date of Decision: October 1, 2024
 

Latest Legal News