High Court Kerala High Court

N.Rajamony Amma vs Tahsildar on 30 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
N.Rajamony Amma vs Tahsildar on 30 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31245 of 2007(T)


1. N.RAJAMONY AMMA, W/O.LATE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :30/09/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                 W.P.(C) NO. 31245 OF 2007 (T)
                 =====================

        Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was the Director of a company by name M/s Janso

Soft Drinks Private Limited. She resigned from the Directorship of

the company w.e.f. 2/1/1987. Subsequently, on 14/9/07, by Ext.P1

notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act,

the property belonging to the petitioner was attached for realising

the dues of the company for the period 82-83 to 85-86 invoking

the provisions of Section 26C of the KGST Act.

2. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner

is that the said provision was introduced in the KGST Act only

w.e.f. 01/04/99 and therefore can have only prospective effect

and cannot be made use of to recover the previous liabilities

particularly when the petitioner had resigned from the

Directorship on 2/1/87.

3. Prior to the introduction of the said Section, this Court

has held in Punalur Paper Mills Ltd v. District Collector

(1985 KLT 758) and Nishad Patel v. State of Kerala (1998(2)

KLT 793) that the dues of a Company cannot be recovered from a

WPC 31245/07
:2 :

Director. Only in view of the provision contained in Section 26C

can a Director be made liable for the dues of the Company.

However, the same being prospective in nature, in the facts of

this Case, the section could not have been invoked against the

petitioner, who already ceased to be a Director of the Company as

early as on 2/1/87. This position is covered in favour of the

petitioner in view of the judgment in Kassim v.Sales Tax

Officer (2007(4) KLT 538).

4. In view of the above, Ext.P1 cannot be sustained and

therefore is quashed.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp