Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

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 2:36 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
 

Similar News