9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. On receipt of exhibits P2 to P6, the first petitioner filed exhibits P7 reply in his capacity as a director of the company. In exhibit P7, the first petitioner specifically requested the third respondent to keep the assessment and penalty proceedings pending till final decision is taken by the second respondent on the question of exemption as an S.S.I. unit. However, no final assessment orders or penalty order pursuant to exhibits P2 to P6 have been served either on the company or on the petitioners till this date to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners. While so, on March 30, 1995, officers of the fifth respondent, namely, the Special Tahsildar (RR), Kanayannur came to the house where the petitioners are residing and told the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s can be taken against the directors of a company for recovery of any amounts whatsoever due from the company. In the present case what respondents 3 to 5 seek to recover is arrears of sales tax allegedly due from M/s. Alliance Leathers (P) Ltd. The petitioners are only the directors of the said company as already noted. They have in their possession no assets of the company whatsoever. As such, they have no personal liability in respect of the dues allegedly due from the company. It is by now well-settled that a director of a company cannot be proceeded against for recovery of arrears of any amount due from the company as already noticed. Therefore, the present proceedings initiated against the petitioners for recovery of sales tax arrear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment orders, the third respondent cannot initiate proceedings for recovery of sales tax said to have been assessed. After filing exhibit P7 reply to the pre-assessment notices and penalty notice, the petitioners have not heard anything from the third respondent in respect of the same. As such, the proceedings initiated by the third respondent and continued by respondents 4 and 5 without serving copies of assessment orders and orders imposing penalty on the petitioners is totally without jurisdiction and unsustainable. The case law on the subject is covered by two decisions of this Court reported in Ramachandran v. State of Kerala [1984] 55 STC 209 (Ker); 1983 KLT 1024 and Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Quilon [1985] 60 ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
