- (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned notices dated October 10, 1996 and October 19, 1996 (annexures "9" and "11", respectively, to the writ petition), and for quashing the assessment order dated March 1, 1994 (annexure "4" to the writ petition).
(2.) IT is to be made clear that learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the very outset that he does not press for quashing of the assessment order dated March 1, 1994 (annexure "4"), which is appealable. He confines his arguments only for quashing the impugned notices (annexures "9" and "11"). The petitioner was, admittedly, a director in the company, Gauri Steel Alloys Private Limited up to January 1, 1993. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1992-93. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the company is itself a juristic entity and, therefore, the respondent can proceed against the assets of the company and the respondent has no legal right to proceed against the assets of the petitioner who was merely a director in the company.
(3.) SECTION 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, "the Act"), clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956, every person who was a director of the private company at any time during the relevant previous year shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax, unless he proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company. From this SECTION, it is clear that the recovery can be made from a director of the company. Then, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Section 179(1) of the Act refers to a private company which is under liquidation. This submission he made on the basis of the heading which Section 179(1) bears. There is nothing in Sub-section (1) of Section 179 to indicate that it refers to a private company which is under liquidation.;