IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.18285 of 2010 in/and C.W.P. No.3492 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2011 Shri Narinder Khurana. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana and another. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Haryana. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. C.M. No.18285 of 2010: Heard. The application is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number. C.W.P. No.3492 of 1992: 1. This petition seeks quashing of Notice issued by the Excise and Taxation Department for recovery of sales tax dues from the petitioner who had stood surety in case of default of the dealer. C.W.P. No.3492 of 1992 2. Case set out in the petition is that after the petitioner stood surety in the year 1986, the petitioner gave a notice of his intention to withdraw on 10.6.1988. Notice of recovery has been received by the petitioner in December, 1991. The period of surety expired in December, 1988. According to the petitioner, since the period of surety had expired and the petitioner had given notice of his intention to withdraw as surety, the impugned recovery proceedings are illegal. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, the contention has been opposed by submitting that unilateral withdrawal with retrospective effect was not permissible and the liability which was being enforced relates to the period prior to expiry of the period for which the petitioner had stood surety. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute that the period to which the recovery relates is covered by the surety furnished by the petitioner. Mere fact that the petitioner gave notice of intention to withdraw, is not enough to absolve the petitioner of his liability under the surety bond. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana and others [1999] 114 STC 227 observing that the guarantor was liable for dues prior to the dissolution of the firm and upto six months after the cancellation of the surety bond and not thereafter. The judgment relied upon does not advance the case of the petitioner. 2 C.W.P. No.3492 of 1992 6. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala (2009) 9 SCC 478 laying down that it was not necessary to first proceed against the principal debtor before proceeding against the guarantor. This legal position is well settled and could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of above, no ground is made out to quash the impugned recovery notice. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 10, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3