A director of a company who has resigned from his directorship is jointly and severally liable for payment of tax found due against the company for the relevant previous year.

G.S.SINGHVI, J.

1. This petition has been filed to quash Annexures P1, P2 and P7 issued respectively by TRO-I, Jalandhar, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I and the Asstt. CIT, Circle 1(1), Jalandhar.

2. The petitioner is working as a conductor with the Punjab Roadways at Depot No. 1, Amritsar. He was a Director in M/s Maini Finance (P) Ltd., a company floated by his brother Rakesh Kumar Maini. As per Annexure P4, the petitioner resigned from directorship of the company w.e.f. 31st March, 1993. For the asst. yr. 1990-91, tax and interest amounting to Rs. 5,89,990 was found due against M/s Maini Finance (P) Ltd. and as the authorities of the IT Department could not effect recovery of the outstanding dues from the company, proceedings were initiated under s. 179(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Notice issued by the competent authority under s. 179 of the Act was served upon the petitioner directly as well as through his employer, namely, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot-1, Amritsar. This fact is revealed from the office letter No. 2749 dt. 21st April, 1995 written by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 2. The petitioner did not pay the amount and, therefore, respondent No. 3 wrote Annexure P1 dt. 22nd Jan., 1996 to respondent No. 4 calling upon him to attach the salary of the petitioner for the purpose of recovery of arrears. In compliance of this direction, respondent No. 4 passed order Annexure P2 dt. 31st Jan., 1996 and attached the salary payable to the petitioner and further directed that the same shall be deposited in the Central Government account for the purpose of recovery of income-tax. The petitioner represented before respondent No. 3 for withdrawal of the order of recovery by making representation Annexure P3. In his letter, the petitioner pleaded that he had no other source of income and, therefore, the order for attachment may be got vacated. This request of the petitioner has not been accepted by respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the petitioner has sought the intervention of the High Court for quashing of the impugned orders. His case is that after having resigned from the directorship w.e.f. 31st March, 1993, he cannot be held liable to pay arrears of income-tax found due against M/s Maini Finance (P) Ltd. Another plea of the petitioner is that proceedings initiated against him are contrary to s. 226(2) of the Act r/w s. 60 of the CPC. Yet another plea of the petitioner is that against the order of assessment dt. 17th March, 1994 revision petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Maini ex-Managing Director of the defaulting company is still pending and, therefore, there is no justification to proceed against him, i.e., the petitioner. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 have pleaded that being director of the company during the year 1991, the petitioner is jointly and severally liable to pay arrears of income-tax found due against M/s Maini Finance (P) Ltd. These respondents have pleaded that order of attachment Annexure R1 has been passed on 18th Jan., 1996 and this order clearly shows that it is subject to r. 29 of Schedule II of the Act. The respondents have further stated that after receipt of the representation made by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 wrote to the General Manager on 6/7th March, 1996 that attachment of the salary of the petitioner is subject to the proviso to s. 226(2) of the Act and respondent No. 4 was requested to leave the exempted portion of the salary as provided under s. 60 of the CPC. It has also been pleaded by the respondents that service of notice under s. 179(1) of the Act was effected on the petitioner and in order to ensure compliance of the principles of natural justice, another notice dt. 13th Feb., 1995 was served upon the petitioner on 30th March, 1995 before order Annexure P7 was passed.

3. First contention of Shri Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that order Annexure P7 is void on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural jus