Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (7) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ew of the settled legal position and in view of the admitted facts, it is not necessary to insist that the petitioner should appear before the District Collector and show cause as to why he should not be arrested. Exhibit P2 notice under section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act issued by the District Collector, Ernakulam, is quashed. All proceedings initiated by the District Collector against the petitioner under section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act shall stand quashed. Appeal allowed. - W.P. (C) No. 37031 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2010 - SANKARAN K.T., J. K.T. SANKARAN J. The petitioner was one of the Directors of Madurai Rubber Company Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The registered office .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct the first respondent to consider exhibits P7 and P8 taking into account the factual and legal contentions put forward therein and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner. (ii) Declare that the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 leading to exhibit P2 on the basis of exhibit P5 wherein Madurai Rubber Company Pvt. Ltd., is shown as the defaulter is illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore null and void. (iii) Direct the first respondent not to take any coercive steps for issuance of warrant of arrest or detention of the petitioner without giving a reasonable time after communicating the order passed pursuant to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here is no scope for applying section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act, in the case. The proceedings contemplated by section 65 of the Recovery Act, therefore, are analogous to execution proceedings and the District Collector who is empowered to recover the sales tax arrears treating the same, by a fiction as an arrear of land revenue by section 23(2)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, is in the position of an executing court with power to commit a defaulter to civil prison. The District Collector therefore cannot go behind the order of assessment which is sought to be executed by resort to section 65. He has to execute the order of assessment as it is. And therefore unless the first respondent establishes that the person against whom recovery proceedi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arose under the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no provision in the Companies Act or the Industrial Disputes Act making the managing director personally liable. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is no provision either in the Companies Act or in the Industrial Disputes Act, which makes the managing director of a company personally liable for recovery of dues against the company. In another decision reported in H.S. Sidana v. Rajesh Enterprises [1993] 77 Comp Cas 251, the same High Court has held that where there was a decree for recovery of sums due to a bank from a company in a suit against the company and its managing director, the liability to discharge the decretal amount was that of the company and not of its managing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out jurisdiction, I do not think that the petitioner should undergo the ordeal of contesting the proceedings and if the order goes against him to challenge the order. If there is an absolute lack of jurisdiction in the matter of initiating proceedings under section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, a writ can be issued under article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings. (See Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 STC 446 (SC); AIR 1955 SC 661 and Carl Still G. m. b. H. v. State of Bihar [1961] 12 STC 449 (SC); AIR 1961 SC 1615). In view of the settled legal position as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and in view of the admitted facts, it is not necessary to insist that the petitioner shoul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates