( 1 ) THE petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Maddi Swarna agro Enterprises Private Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956. The said company is formed for the purpose and carrying on business in Agro Products. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the notice dated 21-2-1992 in RC No. 276/89-D issued by the Deputy Commercial Officer, ganapavaram, Guntur District, the 2nd respondent herein in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Section 8 of the a. P. Revenue Recovery Act read with section 17-C of the Andhra Pradesh General sales Tax Act, for short the APGST Act .

( 2 ) THE short question that falls for our consideration and decision in this case is whether the respondent authorities can validly proceed against the private properties of the petitioner and recover the outstanding tax due from a private limited company in which the petitioner is a Director without winding up that company in accordance with law.

( 3 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: M/s. Maddi Swarna Agro enterprises Private Limited is a dealer registered on the rolls of the Commercial tax Officer, Chilakaluripet, the 1st respondent herein under the provisions of the APGST Act. It appears the said company was incorporated on 10-9-1982. It is submitted by the petitioner that because of the slump in the market and other prevailing conditions, the company sustained losses continuously. The company was assessed to sales tax for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 under the APGST Act and for the assessment year 1988-89 under central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for short the CST Act and it appears the company paid the tax in respect of those years and there after wards it fell in arrears of tax both under APGST Act and CST Act due to continuous losses and non-recovery of the outstanding debts due from the customers. When the matter stood thus, the impugned notice was issued by the 2nd respondent.

( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent by issuing the impugned notice in Form No. l under section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner has demanded outstanding dues from the company towards the tax liability immediately while administering the threat that in the event of default, the personal properties of the petitioner-Director would be attached.

( 5 ) MR. D. K. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity and legality of the impugned notice would strenuously contend that the impugned notice is illegal and without authority of law apart from being violative of Sections 16-B of the apgst Act and also the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. The learned Counsel would urge that under the provisions of the companies Act, the liability of the shareholders is limited to the shares held by them and therefore the shareholders of the company are governed by the provisions of companies Act, 1956, In that view of the matter, recovery of the outstanding dues from the company from out of the personal assets of the shareholders is one without authority of law and therefore the impugned notice should be declared as illegal and invalid. The learned Counsel would also contend that since the company is not yet would up, the provisions of section 16-B of the APGST Act are not attracted and therefore the impugned notice should be held to be one without authority of law.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned special Government Pleader for Taxes meekly attempt to support the impugned action.

( 7 ) SECTION 16-B of the APGST Act reads: "liability of Directors of a Private company in Liquidation : When any private company is wound up and any tax assessed on the company under this act for any period, whether before or in the course of or after its liquidation, cannot be recovered, then every person who was a Director of the private company at any time during the period for which the tax is due, shall be jointly and severally liable for the paymen