IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29875 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MRS. S. NAGAMANICKKAM, S/O K.N.SUBBARAYA CHETTIAR, FLAT NO. 5-B, GRAND COURT, C.R. IYYUNNI ROAD, TRISSUR 680 001. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.A.SARATH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.29875 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P9. The further prayer is to direct the respondents not to proceed against Ext.P6 properties of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P5 order. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is the Managing Director of a Company. According to the petitioner it is a public limited company. Petitioner in this regard relies on Ext.P1. It is the case of the petitioner that originally it was a private limited company when it was incorporated in November, 1992, But consequent on enhancement of its share capital, it became a public limited company in October, 1993 and this is reflected in Ext.P1. Assessment orders were passed for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Appeals were carried to the Tribunal, which came to be allowed by Ext.P3 order. Against the assessment orders for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the company preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority allowed those appeals and the matter was taken to the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by Ext.P4. WPC. 29875/2008. 2 2. The complaint is that attachment came to be made of the personal property of the petitioner, who was the Managing Director, by Ext.P5. Petitioner preferred Exts.P7 and P8 and thereafter Ext.P9 came to be passed. In Ext.P9 the decision proceeds apparently on the basis that the petitioner is not a public limited company. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Devan Ramachandran and the learned Government Pleader Sri.C.K.Govindan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there cannot be any manner of doubt after perusal of Ext.P1 that the Company in question is a public limited company and not a private limited company during the relevant period. Though it was a private limited company, on consequent enhancement it became a public limited company with effect from October, 1993, he contends. Of course learned Government Pleader referred to the provisions contained in Section 22(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and contended that as per the said provision the petitioner is actually liable. There is no whisper about Section 22(4) in Ext.P9 order. 5. After having gone through Ext.P9 order, I feel that there is no reference to the relevant material, in particular Ext.P1. Nor is there advertence to the legal provisions applicable, which the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice as Section 21 and Section 43A of the WPC. 29875/2008. 3 Companies Act. In such circumstances, I am constrained to quash Ext.P9. Accordingly Ext.P9 is quashed. The second respondent will reconsider and take a decision afresh on Exts.P7 and P8 taking note of Ext.P1 and adverting to the relevant provisions of law with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also the first respondent. A decision will be taken within three weeks from today. In order to facilitate an early decision, petitioner or his representative and the first respondent will be present before the second respondent at 11 a.m on 14.11.2008. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb