UMESH MOHANBHAI GARALA Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is directed against an order dated 14.12.2015 by virtue of which the property being residential unit belonging to the petitioner came to be attached by the respondent authorities. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as a Computer Engineer in one associate company of Mr. Sunil Kakkad named as Sai Infosystem (India)Ltd. And while the petitioner was working with said Mr.Sunil Kakkad, who lateron floated a company in the name of Power Infocontrol and Service Pvt.Ltd. With persuation of Mr.Sunil Kakkad, had agreed to become nominal director of the company in the year 2007. However, it is the case of the petitioner at no point of time, the petitioner had any share holding in the company nor even was drawing salary from the company. The petitioner had also stated that he was not even in charge of day to day affairs of the company. As per the say of the petitioner he ceased to be Director of the company with effect from 8.7.2011 and necessary formalities of filling up form no.32 before ROC had also been completed.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that an ex parte assessment came to be carried out of the company named as M/s Power Infocontrol and Services Pvt.Ltd. by Commercial Tax Officer. Pursuant thereto, the respondent nos.1 and 2 authorities have issued notice on 26.5.2015 to the said company and as per the say of the petitioner, a copy of the said notice came to be forwarded to the petitioner. It was pointed out by the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, i.e. from 2007 to 2011, the petitioner was associated as nominal Director of the company had never participated in the activities of the company. Still however, notice came to be issued against him. Later on, on 12.10.2015 the respondent no.1 had issued a notice under section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code name of the petitioner was given in the bracketed portion and the notice was given at the address of the petitioner. By virtue of this notice, the respondent no.1 had called the company to pay amount of tax as assessed within a period of 10 days failing which the property shall be seized and action for recovery of tax dues shall be initiated. Since notice had been posted to the address of the petitioner, upon an apprehension that the property of the petitioner will be attached, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 21109 of 2015 and prayed to set aside the impugned notice which was issued under section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. After hearing the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 23.12.2015:

(3.) Relevant para -2 of the above order states that since the name of the petitioner is written in bracketed portion, the same would not permit to presume that the department is in the process of proceeding ahead with the present petitioner. On that basis, the petition came to be disposed of.