IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27717 of 2005(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DINESHKUMAR M., KORONA, KANNIMOOLA, RESIDING AT THAIRADAPURAM, NELESWAR, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KASARAGOD. ADDL. 5. SRI. P.B. KUNHU MAHIN HAJI, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KANDCO PLYMERS PVT. LTD., KUMBAT, KASARAGOD. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A. 14254 OF 2005 DATED 30.9.2005 BY G.P. SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. ST-50-05-06-E3 DATED 22.8.2005 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KASARAGOD DATED 19.7.99 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY SPECIAL OFFICER KSEB DATED 8.4.2003 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 21(7) OF KGST ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 19.7.2003 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27717 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though W.P. is treated as defective for failure to serve notice on addl. fifth respondent impleaded, I do not think W.P. should be kept pending any longer because what is challenged is recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from a company of which petitioner was one of the directors. Government Pleader reported that the arrears pertain to the years 1996-97 to 1998-99 and 2000-01. Since Section 26C authorises recovery from the directors of private limited company only with effect from 1.4.1999, such recovery is permissible from 1.4.1999 as the amendment is effective from 1.4.1999. However, this court has taken the view that even without Section 26C recovery could be made against beneficiaries of the private limited company. However, this is possible only after identifying the promoters and beneficiaries of the company. It is now reported that the company is defunct for several years and arrears are due to KSIDC also. In the circumstances, W.P.C. is disposed of directing 2 respondents 2 and 3, in co-ordination with each other, to proceed against against the assets of the company and against directors after issuing notice and after hearing their objections. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3