PARAMJIT SINGH ANAND Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR GRADE I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Petitioner Paramjit Singh, the petitioner approached this Court on 10.9.1996 seeking direction for quashing order (Annexure-8) passed by respondent No.10 on 24.7.1996 and prayed that an order of restraint be passed that the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,11,75,301.00 from the him.

(2.) . It was alleged that Anand Laminates Pvt. Ltd., a limited company was incorporated on 12th October, 1984 under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at village Sesai, Tehsil Kalaras, A.B.Road, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was one of the directors of respondent No.3 company at the time of its incorporation. On 16.6.1986 he tendered resignation expressing his desire to retire from the directorship of the company. The resignation was duly accepted by the Board of Directors through its resolution (Annexure-P.1) dated 16.6.1986. On 4.7.1986 an intimation (annexure- P.4) to that effect was duly sent to the Registrar of Companies vide postal receipt (Annexure-P.5). Respondent No.3 had on 9.5.1989 also made an application (Annexure-P.6) to the Directorate of Industries, Madhya Pradesh, in which the petitioner's name was not included as one of the Directors. On 15.7.1996, respondent No.2, through letter (Annexure-P.8) informed respondent No.1 that amount was recoverable from the Company towards as arrears of sales tax and requested that the same be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of Land Revenue. As the petitioner was residing within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1, therefore, on the basis of this letter, respondent No.1 on 24.7.1996 passed an order for effecting recovery from the petitioner as arrears of Land Revenue. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner on 3.8.1996 submitted representation (annexure-P.11) before respondent No.1 stating that he is not the Director of respondent No.3 company, therefore, he is not liable to pay any tax liability of respondent No.3 company. The petitioner's prayer for staying the recovery against him was rejected by respondent No.1 on 23.8.1996 by order (annexure-P.12), therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for the directions aforementioned.

(3.) . After show cause notice, the respondents filed their replies. On 13.8.1998 after the parties were heard. Contention on behalf of the petitioner was noticed that though the recovery had been initiated by Sales Tax Officer in Madhya Pradesh on account of sales tax against respondent No.3 company, which is a private limited company but the Assistant Collector Grade-II, New Delhi was proceeding ahead to make recovery against the petitioner personally, which was without jurisdiction. Recovery certificate received from the State of Madhya Pradesh by respondent No.1 was not available on record. It was also noticed that in a writ petition filed by respondent No.3, Madhya Pradesh High Court had quashed the impugned demand. Accordingly, the Court directed respondent No.2 to make a clear statement on affidavit on the following two points:-