Leave granted.
The appellants are directors of a company known as Messrs.
Rajmohan Cashews Ltd. For the assessment years 1977-78 to 1982-83, assessments
were completed on the company and a demand of Rs. 56 lakhs was raised. This
amount was not paid for various reasons and so, on April 30, 1989, the Deputy
Commissioner passed an order holding the appellants, who are directors of the
company liable to pay the tax due from the company in view of the provisions of
section 179 of the Incometax Act, 1961. The appellants preferred revision
petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax without success. At these two
stages, no point was taken on behalf of the appellants that the company was not
a private limited company and, therefore, the proceedings under section 179 of
the Income-tax Act were unjustified. However, subsequently, this objection was
taken in an application under section 154 of the Act filed before the
Commissioner of Income-tax. But the Commissioner of Income-tax rejected this
contention on the ground that it had not been raised earlier and that there was
no mistake apparent on the face of the record which needed rectification.
Thereupon, the appellants preferred writ petitions before the High Court. The
learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and the
appeals before the Division Bench (see [1991] 192 ITR 90) were also
unsuccessful.
Before the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as before
the High Court, the appellants had produced a letter received by the company
from the Registrar of Companies recognising that the company has become a public
limited company by virtue of section 43A(1A) of the Companies Act, with effect
from October 1, 1975. This letter was dated February 26, 1977. Before the High
Court, it appears to have been represented on behalf of the Income-tax
Department that no office copy of this letter was found in the office of the
Registrar of Companies. The suggestion, therefore, was that this letter was a
fabricated one. The High Court, as already mentioned, dismissed the writ
petitions.
Before us, learned counsel for the appellants, relied upon
the above communication from the Registrar of Companies but since the
genuineness of this letter was doubted, we issued notice to the Registrar of
Companies, Kerala. An affidavit has now been filed on behalf of the Registrar.
It clearly shows that the company had become a public limited company by virtue
of section 43A of the Companies Act with effect from October 1, 1975. As already
mentioned, the arrears sought to be recovered from the appellants relate to the
assessment years 1977-78 to 1982-83. Obviously, the company being a public
limited company, proceedings against the directors for recovery of the tax due
from the company cannot be taken, and certainly not proceeded with, under
section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We need hardly say article 265 of the
Constitution clearly prohibits any attempt to recover taxes except under the
authority of law. It is, therefore, clear that further proceedings against the
appellants for recovery of the tax due from the company have to be stayed.
For the reasons stated above, we allow these appeals,
quash the order passed under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the
Deputy Commissioner and the further orders passed by the Commissioner of
Income-tax in revision and under section 154 of the Act. Further proceedings
against the present appellants for recovery of the tax due from the company
should not be taken. We, however, should not be understood as having in any way
restricted the powers of the Department to recover the amounts due from the
company by other processes in accordance with law. We also make it clear that
any amounts which might have been paid either by the appellants or by the
company in the course of the proceedings now under challenge will not be liable
to be refunded to the appellants. No costs.