IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 1171 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31245/2007 Dated 30/09/2009 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P. ------------------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN THE W.P. ------------------------------------- N.RAJAMONY AMMA, W/O.LATE K.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, VASANTH VIHAR, KOCHUPILAMOODU, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI. HARISANKAR V. MENON. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 714/2011 & W.A. 1171 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Delay in filing the writ appeal is 634 days. The question raised is whether Section 26C which casts exclusive personal liability on directors of the company for payment of sales tax is retrospective or not. The provision was introduced to the Sales Tax Act in 1999, but without providing any retrospectivity. The Government has not even examined whether without any express statutory provision making directors of the private limited company liable, under the general law, recovery could be made from the beneficiaries of the company who are none other than the share holders and directors of the private limited company. Counsel who took notice for respondents on admission submitted that respondent is aged 83 years as of now and she retired as a director of the company on 2.1.1987. We do not think any useful purpose will be served by pursuing the writ appeal because even if this Court holds any retrospectivity for Section 26C, personal liability against the respondent for recovery of arrears of tax from 1981 CM.APPLN.714/2011 & W.A. 1171/2011 2 onwards, cannot be permitted after the delay of quarter of a century. Since delay in raising of demand and failure to recovery is obviously attributable to the Department and lack of strict provisions of which the legislature woke up only in 1999, we see no merit in the delay condonation petition as well as in the writ appeal. Both are accordingly dismissed. However, we clarify that our judgment should not be taken as any finding on the retrospectivity or otherwise of Section 26C. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-