The Assessee, a former director of the company, resigned from the position and sold off its shares. Subsequently, the company went into liquidation. After four years, a show cause notice under section 179 was issued to the Assessee, requiring payment of the company’s pending tax liabilities.On writ the Court held that thereading of section 179, which indicates that the authorities should examine the circumstances stated in the section before exercising jurisdiction under the provisions. The notice issued under section 179 was vague, as it only mentioned the Assessee being a director of the company without specifying the reasons for holding the Assessee responsible, and whether the conditions of section 179 had been complied with. Since the non-recovery of dues was not linked to the Assessee’s gross negligence, misconduct, or breach of duty, and all relevant circumstances were not reflected in the notice, its primary issuance was attributed to the failure to collect demands due to business closure and the non-existence of the company’s office. Therefore, demanding taxes from the Assessee appeared premature. Court also observed that  recognizing the potential revenue loss, directed the authority to reconsider its decision and take fresh steps in accordance with the law after following the proper procedure.(AY. 2011-12)