AJAY S PATEL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case appears to be that on 25.1.2015, a company in the name and style of Hirak Biotech Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") was incorporated. Initially, there were three Directors. Thereafter, the Directors were added. The petitioner also remained as Director of the company for some time. On 11.10.2013, a show cause notice was issued under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the outstanding tax dues of the company should not be recovered from the petitioner in capacity as the Director of the company. The petitioner submitted reply on 17.10.2013 and as per the petitioner, another show cause notice was issued dated 4.9.2014 calling upon the petitioner to pay the dues, failing which, coercive steps were to be taken. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and as per the petitioner, when the present proceeding was going on before the officer concerned, the present petition was filed. As per the petitioner, this Court on 16th September, 2014, had entertained the petition and had granted interim stay so far as coercive actions are concerned.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel Mr. Soparkar appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) As such, it is undisputed position that the company is a limited company and therefore, can be termed as public limited since it is not a private limited company. The language of section 179 provides for taking action for recovery of the outstanding tax of the private limited company from the Directors if the revenue finds that in spite of sincere attempts, it is not possible to recover the outstanding tax amount from the private limited company.