IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 31245 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.RAJAMONY AMMA, W/O.LATE K.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, VASANTH VIHAR, KOCHUPILAMOODU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SPLGOVT.PLEADER SRI.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31245/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM NO.11 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RSPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31245 OF 2007 (T) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the Director of a company by name M/s Janso Soft Drinks Private Limited. She resigned from the Directorship of the company w.e.f. 2/1/1987. Subsequently, on 14/9/07, by Ext.P1 notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, the property belonging to the petitioner was attached for realising the dues of the company for the period 82-83 to 85-86 invoking the provisions of Section 26C of the KGST Act. 2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the said provision was introduced in the KGST Act only w.e.f. 01/04/99 and therefore can have only prospective effect and cannot be made use of to recover the previous liabilities particularly when the petitioner had resigned from the Directorship on 2/1/87. 3. Prior to the introduction of the said Section, this Court has held in Punalur Paper Mills Ltd v. District Collector (1985 KLT 758) and Nishad Patel v. State of Kerala (1998(2) KLT 793) that the dues of a Company cannot be recovered from a WPC 31245/07 :2 : Director. Only in view of the provision contained in Section 26C can a Director be made liable for the dues of the Company. However, the same being prospective in nature, in the facts of this Case, the section could not have been invoked against the petitioner, who already ceased to be a Director of the Company as early as on 2/1/87. This position is covered in favour of the petitioner in view of the judgment in Kassim v.Sales Tax Officer (2007(4) KLT 538). 4. In view of the above, Ext.P1 cannot be sustained and therefore is quashed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp