IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 6829 of 2005(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAYALAKSHMI, VADAKKEDATHU, T.K.DIVAKARAN ROAD, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SALES TAX OFFICER, LUXURY AND WORKS CONTRACT, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF JAYALAKSHMI BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ATTACHMENT NOTICE NO. S4.7209/04/S.T. S4.7210/04/ST, S4. 1400/04/ST., S4.8099/02/ST. AND S4.1786/02/ST DATED 6.1.2005 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO. 1058/77 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 28.4.1977 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.2.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 6829 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from a private limited company, of which petitioner was a director. The main contention raised is that no personal recovery can be made from the director for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from the private limited company. Since Section 26C came into force on 1.7.1998, recovery can be made for arrears of sales tax held due from that day. Government Pleader rightly pointed out that even for the prior periods, recovery can be made from petitioner and other directors in this case because this is a private limited company constituted with petitioner and her husband as the only directors. This position is approved by the Supreme Court in the decision in SRI MEENAKSHI MILLS' case, 63 ITR 609, and in MC DOWELL' s case, 154 I.T.R. 149. W.P. is therefore dismissed as devoid of any merit directing respondents to proceed for recovery against the petitioner and other director of the company. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 2