IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10469 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAMLA MAJEED, 'HIBA', PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KARUNAGAPPALLY, (ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-III, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. M/S.HOT POINT HOME APPLIANCES PVT.LTD., T.P.III/733, MANAPPILLY P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.V.MOHAMMED NAZEER. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 FORM NO.32 DT 29.3.99. P2 RR NOTICE DT 19.1.00 ISSUED BY R3. P3 ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 18.6.02 FOR 95-96. P3(A) - DO - FOR 96-97. P4 LETTER DT 24.9.02 OF R4. P5 LETTER DT 18.11.02 TO R2. P6 LETTER DT 22.11.02 OF R3. P7 RECEIPT DT 31.3.03. P8 JUDGMENT DT 2.11.06 UB OP.35541/02. P9 OBJECTION DT 21.2.07 TO R3. P10 PROCEEDINS DT 21.3.07 OF R3. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 10469 OF 2007 U ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the Managing Director of the 4th respondent company till 29.3.1999. Ext.P1 is produced as a copy of Form No.32 dated 29.3.1999 regarding the statutory intimation regarding change in managership. According to the petitioner, her resignation was accepted vide the 34th Board meeting of the company. The petitioner received Ext.P2 RR notice issued by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P6 stating that personal properties of the petitioner will be attached towards sales tax arrears due from the company for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings which resulted in Ext.P8 judgment. By Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed the authority to consider and dispose of petitioner's objections and thereafter only to proceed against ex-Directors of the company, and that too if the same is permissible under law. If the company has assets, the WPC.10469/07 : 2 : recovery authorities should recover the arrears from the assets of the company. It is also directed that personal recovery against the petitioner should be done only after the disposal of the petitioner's objection and only after declaring the concerned Director liable. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 objection. Ext.P10 is an order passed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order and Exts.P2 and P6 RR notices. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is clearly covered by the decision of this Court in Kassim Vs. Sales Tax Officer [2007 (4) KLT 538]. Therein, this Court considered a similar matter and stated that the authority under section 26C of the KGST Act will not extend to Directors for the assessment year prior to the introduction of the provision. After going through that judgment, I feel that the petitioner is not liable to pay the sales tax arrears. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is quashed and it is declared that the WPC.10469/07 : 3 : authorities cannot proceed against the petitioner on the strength of section 26C of the KGST Act against the personal assets of the petitioner for recovery of the sales tax arrears of the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the petitioner has remitted some amount by way of interim orders. In regard to the same, the petitioner may represent before the 2nd respondent and if the petitioner makes such a representation within three weeks from today, a decision will be taken in regard to the same by the 2nd respondent, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks