JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in the Proceedings No. Na. Ka. No. 547/2015/A3 dated 05.11.2015 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.

1. The auction notice, dated 05.11.2015, issued by the respondent, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he purchased the land measuring 55 cents in Ernapuram Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District and started a Company in the name and style of M/s. Herbalayas Radsafe India Private Limited and the said company was registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on the file of the Registrar of Companies, Coimbatore.

3. The petitioner further admits that he signed all necessary documents, applications and forms in respect of the above Company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner states that after sometime, he shifted his residence from Salem and he was not aware of the business of the above Company. However, the business activities of the Company were stopped and it is admitted that the Company is not functioning as of now.

4. To the surprise of the petitioner, his property in Survey No. 144, Ernapuram Village was brought for sale by the respondent in proceedings dated 05.11.2015 for the dues of the abovesaid Company without verifying the records. The petitioner approached the respondent and has stated that he is the owner of the property and the property is not in the name of the Company.

5. In view of the fact that the Company is the defaulter of tax payments, the petitioner made a request to drop proceedings against him as well as against the property owned by him. However, the respondent informed the petitioner that the sale proceedings cannot be stopped until tax arrears are paid. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Company is the different entity and therefore, the property belongs to the petitioner cannot be auctioned for the purpose of realisation of the arrears of sales tax. The Company was registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner, admittedly, signed the documents and the application for registration of the Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and he was added as a Director of the said Company. However, he had not participated in the activities of the Company. Under these circumstances, the petitioner states that he is not personally liable to pay the tax default of the Company and the property belongs to him cannot be auctioned for the purpose of realisation of the tax amount.

7. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of George J. Mathew vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2002 (112) Company Cases 641 Mad. wherein this Court relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Ramnarayan Shahu vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 1990 (78) STC 97 (AP) held that the Directors of a Private Limited Company cannot be proceeded against personally in recovery of the amounts due from the Company except in the manner provided under Section 16-B of the APGST Act and the impugned notice issued to one of the Directors was quashed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

8. In an another judgment in the case of Jagteshwar Prasad Bansal and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another [Judgment pronounced on 07.12.2017 in W.P. No. 73 of 2012], wherein in paragraphs 8 and 9, the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital made the following observations based on Section 2(11)(e) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005:

“8. Section 2(11)(e) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as under:

“(e) an individual, a firm or a company or other body corporate, club, Hindu Undivided Family or any other system of joint family, association of persons, trust and co-operative