IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23934 of 2004(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.M.BABY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, RESIDING AT POTTAKKAL HOUSE, 14TH MILE, VALARA POST, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX OFFICE, ADIMALI, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADIMALI BLOCK GENERAL MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ADIMALI, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE OFFICE, ADIMALI.P.O. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON 23/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.14/1996 DT.16.5.1996 OF R4. P2: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT.8.8.99 OF THE RETURNING OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED THE ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF R4 SOCIETY. P3: TRUE COPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.3.7.2004 ISSUED U/S.7 OF THE KERALA R.R. ACT. P4: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.NIL ISSUED U/S.34 OF THE KERALA R.R. ACT. P5: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER ON 5.8.2004 BEFORE R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.23934 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from a society of which petitioner was a former Secretary and member of the Board. There is no provision in the KGST Act authorising recovery of sales tax from Secretary or managing committee member of a society. However, if any of them including petitioner has executed bond at the time of granting registration, recovery could be made to the extent of bond amount. The W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to proceed for recovery only to the extent authorised by the statute and under the bond if any executed, that too, to the extent permissible under the bond. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms