The recovery of sales tax arrears due from a company cannot be made from the individual directors personally. The recovery procedure provided under Section 13(3)(b) should not be confused with the character of the amount recoverable, which is the tax assessed or any other amount due under the Act.

G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) M/s. Ajanta Sea Foods Private Limited ("company", for short), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The present petitioners, husband and wife, are among the directors of the said company. The said company is a "dealer" within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act" for short ). For recovery of arrears of sales tax for the period from 1991-92 to 1993-94 amounting to Rs. 1,91,390 (the quantum is disputed and an appeal in that regard is said to be still pending), a proceeding under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Act was initiated against the company at Criminal Misc. No. 81 of 1997 before the learned jmfc Kumta. Fine levy warrant was issued against the company initially. But, subsequently, the commercial Tax Authorities furnished the address for execution of the fine levy warrant as follows : "m/s. Peter J. R. Prabhu, Chairman and Managing Director, Skyline Group of companies, No. 80, 3rd Cross, Lavelle Road, Bangalore".

( 2 ) WHILE the address thus is shown to be of the first petitioner herein, the premises at which he is shown to be residing, namely, "no. 80, 3rd Cross, Lavelle Road, Bangalore" is stated to be the exclusive property of the second petitioner Mrs. Carmel Prabhu, wife of the first petitioner. The tax authorities ("revenue", for short) furnished this address on the footing that for the arrears of sales tax due from the company, its directors are also personally liable, and, as such, the fine levy warrant could be executed and the arrears of tax due may be recovered from them personally by means of attachment and sale of moveables found in the said premises. That the revenue furnished this address with that understanding is apparent from the fact that before the magistrate, it was contended on behalf of the present petitioners that warrant cannot be issued against an individual director, the proceeding initiated under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Act being against the company. The order sheet of June 11, 1999 in Criminal Misc. No. 81 of 1997, indicates that the Revenue had not agreed with this contention. By the order impugned herein, the learned magistrate proceeded to reject the submission as against the non-liability of an individual Director, as being untenable, and directed issuing of fine levy warrant as against the first petitioner at the address of the second petitioner's residence. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this court under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with Section 13 (4) of the Act as against the said order of the learned magistrate dated June 11, 1999.

( 3 ) THE question that arises is whether, in a proceeding under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Act, arrears of sales tax due from the company can be recovered from the individual directors personally.

( 4 ) SRI Bhavani Singh, learned High Court Government Pleader for the Revenue would submit thus : The amount recoverable under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Act is as if it were a fine. That an individual director of a company is also personally liable to pay fine is evident from Sections 29 and 31a of the Act. There is no distinction between fine payable by the director under Section 29 read with Section 31a of the Act and the amount of tax recoverable under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Act as if it is a fine. The learned magistrate was therefore right in directing recovery of arrears of sales tax due from the company even from the personal assets of the directors of the company.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Sri Srinivas Raghavan would however submit otherwise, and, since I am agreeing with his submission, I am referring to his submission as part of the discussion leading to the conclusion. It is as follows :

The definition of "dealer" under Section 2 (k) of the Act is inclusive and the company like M/s. Ajarita Sea Foods Private Limited would be included therein. In the entire Act, there is no provision under which an individual dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document