The first I knew of the s.179 order was when my bank account was attached. Nobody ever gave me a notice. Is that enough to get it set aside?
Yes. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the principles of natural justice are to be read into s.179(1), because the reverse burden the sub-section places on the director can only be discharged if he is put to notice and given an opportunity to prove it. Both the s.179 order and the consequential attachment order were set aside, with liberty to the department to start again on notice.
Decided by the High Court (Sujoy Paul J and Dr. G. Radha Rani J) on 2024-12-12, reported as Writ Petition No. 29787 of 2024 (High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh). No law-report citation appeared in the text read.. It bears on section 179 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Demand, Recovery & Stay matters.
This is the cleanest possible ground and it is jurisdictional in substance: it does not require the director to show anything about the merits. The Court expressly refused the Revenue's invitation to look at whether the director could in fact prove that non-recovery was not attributable to her, holding that the scope of review under Article 226 is the decision-making process and that a faulty process is cured by setting the order aside, not by testing the merits in the writ court. Two limits are worth telling a client. First, the relief is a fresh start, not an end - the department was given liberty to proceed on notice. Second, a notice is not the whole of it: the Court noted that in Mehul Jadavji Shah the Bombay High Court set aside a s.179 order even though a show-cause notice had been issued, because the notice did not contain adequate details.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner is the widow of a former director of a private company. By order dated 26 May 2022 the Income Tax Department invoked s.179 of the Income-tax Act 1961 and saddled her with the company's tax liability, and on 17 October 2024 passed a consequential attachment order. She came to know of the order of 26 May 2022 only on receiving the attachment order. She was never put to notice before the order of 26 May 2022 was made. On a specific query from the Bench, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department could not tell the Court that the petitioner had been put to notice in the s.179 proceeding before the impugned order was issued.
The order dated 26 May 2022 having been passed unilaterally without hearing the petitioner, that order and the consequential attachment order dated 17 October 2024 were set aside, with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by issuing notice, in which event she may take all possible defences in her reply. The writ petition was disposed of without any opinion on the merits and without costs (paras 6 and 7).
The Court followed its own earlier decision in Sri Subba Rao Pavuluri v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which it set out at length. The reasoning it adopted is that a plain reading of s.179(1) shows the tax can be fastened on a director unless he proves that non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part; the director can prove those ingredients and discharge that reverse burden only if he is put to notice and given an opportunity to prove them; so, in the manner sub-section (1) is framed, the principles of natural justice are to be read into the provision, as they have been read into taxation statutes by the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam, FAG Precision Bearings, Sahara India (Firm) and Kesar Enterprises. An order entailing civil consequences passed without notice runs contrary to those principles. The same view had been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Susan Chacko Perumal, quoted in the judgment, which held that it is not correct to suggest that the moment a private company's tax dues remain unpaid the consequence under s.179(1) must follow against each director, that the statute envisages a stage at which the director has an opportunity to prove the negative, and that 'by no stretch of imagination can the IT authorities proceed to pass order in terms of sub section (1) of section 179 by merely holding that despite repeated efforts, the tax dues of the company remained unpaid'. On the Revenue's argument that the petitioner had in any event failed to establish that non-recovery could not be attributed to her, the Court held that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is the decision-making process, that it was under no obligation to examine the merits, and that where the process is faulty the proper course is to set the order aside and let the Revenue proceed afresh in accordance with law (para 13 of the quoted judgment, adopted). The Court also noted Mehul Jadavji Shah, where the Bombay High Court set aside a final s.179(1) order even though a show-cause notice had issued, because the notice did not contain adequate details.
This Court in Subba Rao (supra) followed the view taken by Gujrat High Court and came to hold that in a case of this nature, considering the language employed in Section 179 of the Act, the petitioner should be put to notice.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the principles of natural justice are to be read into s.179(1), because the reverse burden the sub-section places on the director can only be discharged if he is put to notice and given an opportunity to prove it. Both the s.179 order and the consequential attachment order were set aside, with liberty to the department to start again on notice. This was decided by the High Court (Sujoy Paul J and Dr. G. Radha Rani J) and bears on section 179 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Writ Petition No. 29787 of 2024 (High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh). No law-report citation appeared in the text read.. This is the cleanest possible ground and it is jurisdictional in substance: it does not require the director to show anything about the merits. The Court expressly refused the Revenue's invitation to look at whether the director could in fact prove that non-recovery was not attributable to her, holding that the scope of review under Article 226 is the decision-making process and that a faulty process is cured by setting the order aside, not by testing the merits in the writ court. Two limits are worth telling a client. First, the relief is a fresh start, not an end - the department was given liberty to proceed on notice. Second, a notice is not the whole of it: the Court noted that in Mehul Jadavji Shah the Bombay High Court set aside a s.179 order even though a show-cause notice had been issued, because the notice did not contain adequate details. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish the negative first: file an RTI or a written request for the dispatch and service record of any notice under s.179, and put on affidavit the date you first learned of the order.
The petitioner is the widow of a former director of a private company. By order dated 26 May 2022 the Income Tax Department invoked s.179 of the Income-tax Act 1961 and saddled her with the company's tax liability, and on 17 October 2024 passed a consequential attachment order. She came to know of the order of 26 May 2022 only on receiving the attachment order. She was never put to notice before the order of 26 May 2022 was made. On a specific query from the Bench, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department could not tell the Court that the petitioner had been put to notice in the s.179 proceeding before the impugned order was issued. The matter was decided on 2024-12-12 by the High Court (Sujoy Paul J and Dr. G. Radha Rani J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The order dated 26 May 2022 having been passed unilaterally without hearing the petitioner, that order and the consequential attachment order dated 17 October 2024 were set aside, with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by issuing notice, in which event she may take all possible defences in her reply. The writ petition was disposed of without any opinion on the merits and without costs (paras 6 and 7).
The Court followed its own earlier decision in Sri Subba Rao Pavuluri v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which it set out at length. The reasoning it adopted is that a plain reading of s.179(1) shows the tax can be fastened on a director unless he proves that non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part; the director can prove those ingredients and discharge that reverse burden only if he is put to notice and given an opportunity to prove them; so, in the manner sub-section (1) is framed, the principles of natural justice are to be read into the provision, as they have been read into taxation statutes by the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam, FAG Precision Bearings, Sahara India (Firm) and Kesar Enterprises. An order entailing civil consequences passed without notice runs contrary to those principles. The same view had been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Susan Chacko Perumal, quoted in the judgment, which held that it is not correct to suggest that the moment a private company's tax dues remain unpaid the consequence under s.179(1) must follow against each director, that the statute envisages a stage at which the director has an opportunity to prove the negative, and that 'by no stretch of imagination can the IT authorities proceed to pass order in terms of sub section (1) of section 179 by merely holding that despite repeated efforts, the tax dues of the company remained unpaid'. On the Revenue's argument that the petitioner had in any event failed to establish that non-recovery could not be attributed to her, the Court held that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is the decision-making process, that it was under no obligation to examine the merits, and that where the process is faulty the proper course is to set the order aside and let the Revenue proceed afresh in accordance with law (para 13 of the quoted judgment, adopted). The Court also noted Mehul Jadavji Shah, where the Bombay High Court set aside a final s.179(1) order even though a show-cause notice had issued, because the notice did not contain adequate details. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "This Court in Subba Rao (supra) followed the view taken by Gujrat High Court and came to hold that in a case of this nature, considering the language employed in Section 179 of the Act, the petitioner should be put to notice." The decision followed or applied Sri Subba Rao Pavuluri v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.) - followed and quoted at length; Susan Chacko Perumal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 249 Taxman 501 (Guj.) - quoted with approval through Sri Subba Rao; Mehul Jadavji Shah v. Deputy CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21261 - referred to; C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 78; FAG Precision Bearings v. Sales Tax Officer, (1997) 3 SCC 486; Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151; Kesar Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC 733 - relied on for reading natural justice into taxing statutes.
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-12-12 and is reported as Writ Petition No. 29787 of 2024 (High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh). No law-report citation appeared in the text read.. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 179, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The order dated 26 May 2022 having been passed unilaterally without hearing the petitioner, that order and the consequential attachment order dated 17 October 2024 were set aside, with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by issuing notice, in which event she may take all possible defences in her reply. The writ petition was disposed of without any opinion on the merits and without costs (paras 6 and 7). It arises in Demand, Recovery & Stay matters, on section 179 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Sujoy Paul J and Dr. G. Radha Rani J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Challenge the s.179 order and the attachment order together; both were set aside here as the second falls with the first. Do not be drawn into arguing the merits in the writ petition - the Court held it is under no obligation to examine whether non-recovery can be attributed to the director, and engaging on merits invites the Revenue's counter that you have had your chance. If a show-cause notice was in fact issued, shift to the adequacy point: a notice without the facts and allegations relied on does not let you discharge the reverse burden (Mehul Jadavji Shah; and see the entry on Sadhna Ramchandra Jeswani). Be ready for a fresh notice and prepare the substantive defence on gross neglect, misfeasance and breach of duty now.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. No search for later treatment was run. The proposition is supported by the Gujarat line quoted within the judgment (Susan Chacko Perumal) and by the Bombay decision in Mehul Jadavji Shah referred to in it, neither of which was read for this entry. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The indiankanoon print rendering of this judgment interleaves the Court's own paragraphs with a long block quotation and the numbering has to be read with care. Paragraph 5 of this judgment introduces and then reproduces paragraphs 8 to 15 of the earlier Andhra Pradesh decision in Sri Subba Rao Pavuluri; the passages numbered 8 to 15 in the retrieved text - including the reference to an order dated 07.03.2023 and the sentence that 'the impugned order dated 17.03.2023, is liable to be jettisoned' - belong to that quoted judgment and are NOT this Court's own findings or dates. The present Court's own paragraphs are 1 to 7, and the order under challenge here is dated 26 May 2022 with a consequential attachment order dated 17 October 2024. The key_quote is taken from paragraph 6, which is unambiguously the Court's own. Paragraph 1 was not returned in a form that could be read. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The order dated 26 May 2022 having been passed unilaterally without hearing the petitioner, that order and the consequential attachment order dated 17 October 2024 were set aside, with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by issuing notice, in which event she may take all possible defences in her reply. The writ petition was disposed of without any opinion on the merits and without costs (paras 6 and 7).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Can the department recover a private company's tax from you personally as a director?
The department wants to recover the company's tax dues from me because I was a director. Can they?
The department has passed an order under s.179 making me liable for my company's tax. Must the notice first show that recovery from the company failed?
Under s.179 the burden is on me to disprove gross neglect. Does the Tax Recovery Officer have to deal with what I say?