Point of Law - Section 78 specifically deal with offence by companies and the criminal liability is fastened on the Directors who were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, but does not at all provide for any personal liability of the Directors to pay the sales-tax dues of the Company nor does it empower the authorities to proceed against the personal properties of the Directors.

ORDER :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.05.2019 whereby the respondent No.1 passed order attaching the personal property of the petitioner purportedly for the outstanding dues of the Company as well as the action of the respondent No.3 dated 21.05.2019 whereby the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inter-alia calling upon the petitioner to raise objections, if any. The petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs :

“7.0. The Petitioner therefore prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:

(A) Issue a writ of certiorari:

(i) quash and set aside the impugned action of the Respondents whereby a lien is earmarked on the property of the Petitioner being Survey No.205, Ward No.2, District Rajkot ad-measuring 249.94 sq. mtrs. quash and set aside the communication dated 11.05.2019 of the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.4

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the this petition, stay the 05 implementation, operation of the order dated 17-06-2019 at Annexure-A and the impugned action of the Respondent No.4 hereto and restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner herein.

(C) Award cost of this petition.

(D) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and expedient.”

2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are as follow:

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a director of the Patel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. The said Company was inter alia in the business of rolling steel bars.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had initiated proceedings against the said Company in respect of the purported outstanding dues of sales tax and a demand of Rs.2.37 crores was raised against the said Company for the outstanding dues of sales tax in respect of the years 1998-99 to 2000-01.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.06.2015, the respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to remain present before him on 05.06.2015 and disclose the material facts in respect of the said Company.

2.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 again issued a notice dated 15.06.2015 calling upon the petitioner to disclose additional facts of the said Company.

2.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner replied to the said letter vide his letter dated 18.06.2015 whereby the Petitioner informed the respondent No.1 that the personal property of the petitioner cannot be attached in view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court.

2.6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner also addressed a letter dated 18.06.2015 to the Manager, Central Bank of India, requesting the said Bank to disclose the relevant information in respect of the property of the said Company mortgaged with the said Bank in order to enable the petitioner to reply to the said notice dated 15.06.2015 issued by the Respondent No.1.

2.7. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 10.05.2019 calling upon the petitioner to remain present and produce relevant information failing which necessary steps in respect of attachment of assets and bank accounts may be taken.

2.8. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner once again remained personally present before the respondent No.1 and disclosed all facts in the knowledge of the petitioner to the Respondent No.1.

2.9. It is the case of the petitioner, however, the respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 17.05.2019 to the respondent No.1 informing him about the outstanding dues of the said Company and requesting the respondent No.4 to immediately earmark the lien on all the properties belonging to the petitioner.

2.10. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 21.05.2019 to the Petitioner under Sec