JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. With the consent of the parties taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself since pleadings are completed. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with.

2. Petitioners, long time ago were Directors of a company Twin City Organics Pvt. Ltd. (the company). Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are officers exercising powers under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 (the MGST Act) and the BOMBAY SALES TAX ACT , 1959 (the BST Act) and the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (the CST Act).

Facts in all the three petitions are almost identical save and except the dates on which petitioners joined the Board of Directors of the company and their date of resignation differ. The facts mentioned in this judgment are from Writ Petition (L) No. 2121 of 2022.

3. Petitioner is impugning an order dated 27th September 2021 passed by Respondent No.3, the consequential Notice of Demand dated 27th September 2021 issued under Section 38 of the BST Act and Final Notice of Assessment dated 27th September 2021 in Form VIII (B) under the CST Act. According to petitioner, the order, consequential notice of demand and final notice of assessment are illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the MGST Act, BST Act and CST Act.

4. The company was incorporated as a private limited company on 25th May 1973 and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. The Directors of the Company as on 1st January 1990 were one Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, Rajlaxmi Babu, Prakash D. Sanghavi (Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 2133 of 2022) and Satish D. Sanghavi (Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 2129 of 2022).

5. On or about 26th September 1990 one Praful N. Vaghani was appointed as Director of the company. Praful N. Vaghani resigned sometime in July 1992 and the resignation was accepted on 29th July 1992. On 29th July 1992 Mukesh D. Ramani (Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 2121 of 2022) was appointed as Director of the company. Sometime in July 1994 the company closed its manufacturing unit which according to petitioner was due to coercive action by the Excise Department. Petitioner (Mukesh D. Ramani) resigned as a Director of the company sometime in March 1995.

6. The company thereafter filed a case before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) constituted under the Sick Industrial Companies Act and at the hearing held on 4th February 1997 the Board noted that the company satisfied all the criteria of sick industrial company and held accordingly.

7. Prior thereto, on or about 14th July 1995, Bank of India filed suit for recovery of about Rs.1.53 Crores and further interest from the company and in April 1996 this court appointed Receiver to take possession of the manufacturing unit. In view of the BIFR accepting reference of the Purti Parab company as a sick unit Bank of India was appointed as Operative Agency. On 24th October 1997 a joint meeting of all interested parties to discuss proposal of rehabilitation scheme was fixed by Bank of India as Operative Agency. Bank of India, as the operating agency, submitted report dated 13th November 1997 as also Minutes of the joint meeting held on 24th October 1997. At the meeting representatives of Sales Tax Department, Central Excise Department, Income Tax Department and Reserve Bank of India etc. were present. Reasons for sickness also was mentioned. The reasons for sickness is not attributable to petitioner. The reasons are recorded as under :

Re