IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.51 of 2008 YUGAL KISHORE CHOUDHARY S/O SRI RAM NANDAN CHOUDHARY R/O PARAMOUNT MARKET PURANI DHARMASALA CHOWK, TOWN & DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR,THE THEN MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S AMAN PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD. ---------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT.OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUZAFFARPUR CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR,(CERTIFICATE HOLDER)-- ---------- ------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Amaresh Kumar Sinha,Adv. For the State: Mr. S. Prasad, AC to AAG-9 ----------- 2 26.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 20th September, 2007 which has been passed by the Member Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 13 of 2007 where the application of the petitioner under section 62 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act was dismissed. The background to the present dispute is that a company known as M/s Amon Pharmaceuticals Private Limited is a registered company under the Companies Act. The present petitioner Yugal Kishore Choudhary was the managing director of the company in question. A certificate proceeding came to be initiated against the company when certain sales tax dues against the company was not paid. The matter was contested at the level of Certificate Officer on the ground that the petitioner has no personal liability. The dues are of the company. The liability of the - 2 - present petitioner as a managing director is not a personal one but even if it is treated to be one it is limited to the extent of guaranty. The court below accepted the contention of the petitioner but the State went in appeal and order was reversed. When the petitioner moved or invoked the revisional jurisdiction before the Member Board of Revenue, the Member Board of Revenue has rejected the revision application certifying that the liability is of the petitioner and he cannot escape the liability. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no dispute with regard to proposition of law. Based on the pleadings and submissions of learned counsel the petitioner cannot be saddled with the entire responsibility of repayment of sales tax. His responsibility is to the extent of guaranty, which cannot be ruled out. Whatever is required to be paid by the petitioner as guarantor same will have to be paid by him. The Member Board of Revenue has indicated the same in the concluding para of the revisional order. In view of the above stated position no interference with the revisional order is required. The liability of the petitioner is certified to the extent of his guaranty and for further dues the same will have to be recovered from the company in the prescribed manner. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)