A director's personal liability is not a single legal concept. It is a bundle of statutory exposures, each with its own trigger, standard of proof, and consequence. The Companies Act, 2013 imposes liability for breaches of fiduciary duty, fraud, and statutory non-compliance. The GST Act imposes liability for tax evasion, non-payment, and the failure to comply with the registration and invoicing requirements. The two regimes operate independently, and a director who has discharged his Companies Act duties may still face personal liability under the GST Act.
The Companies Act Exposure
Under the Companies Act, a director is liable for acts of omission or commission that occur with his knowledge, consent, or connivance, or where he has not acted diligently. Section 166 codifies the duties of care, skill, and independent judgment. Section 447 imposes imprisonment and fine for fraud, and the prosecution must prove the mens rea. The liability is personal, but it is generally secondary to the company's liability; the director is liable as an officer in default.
The GST Act Exposure
The GST Act imposes personal liability on directors in specific circumstances. Section 89 provides for the liability of directors in cases of tax evasion, and Section 122 imposes penalties for specified offences. The GST authorities can prosecute the directors where the company has committed an offence, and the prosecution does not require proof of the director's personal gain. The director's liability is joint and several with the company.
The GST Act also treats a director's personal guarantee differently from a corporate guarantee. Where a director gives a personal guarantee for the company's bank loan without consideration, and the guarantee is given in compliance with the RBI norms, the open market value of the guarantee is nil under CBIC Circular 204/16/2023-GST, and no GST is payable. The circular clarifies that the guarantee is not a supply for GST purposes where it is given without consideration and is not in the course or furtherance of the director's business.
The Overlap and the Divergence
The overlap is in the conduct that triggers liability: fraud, misrepresentation, and non-compliance. A director who signs a false GST return may face prosecution under both the GST Act and the Companies Act, although the two prosecutions serve different purposes and are subject to different procedures. The divergence is in the standard of proof and the defence. The GST Act's prosecution is directed at the tax offence, and the director's Companies Act due diligence is not a defence. The Companies Act's prosecution is directed at the breach of duty, and the GST compliance is a factor in the diligence analysis.
A director who wishes to minimise personal exposure must maintain a record of diligence that covers both regimes: the board minutes, the audit committee reports, the GST filings, and the correspondence with the tax authorities.
Call to Action
Anuj Desai & Associates advises directors and companies on the dual liability exposure under the Companies Act and the GST Act—from the Section 166 diligence record and the Section 447 defence to the GST prosecution and the personal guarantee valuation. If you are facing a regulatory inquiry or a prosecution, we can help you assess the exposure and build a defence.
📧 office@anujdesaiassociates.com
📞 9619456656
🌐 https://anujdesaiassociates.com
🔗 linkedin.com/in/ca-anuj-desai-122547230
Article 188