Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
VARDHANAN P.R. – Appellant
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition disposed of with specified procedural conditions. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner challenges tax recovery notices based on prior resignation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. authorities insist on pursuing director for unpaid tax dues. (Para 4) |
| 4. court hears arguments on recovery procedures and liabilities. (Para 5) |
| 5. director's liability contingent on lack of recoverable company assets. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P2, P3 and P7 notices.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
M/s. Chakra Motors Pvt. Ltd. was a registered dealer for the purpose of sales tax with the commercial tax department of the 4th respondent, since 2005. The petitioner was the Managing Director of the above said firm. In 2010 the petitioner was forced to resign from the company. Thereafter, Ext.P1 was submitted by the then Directors of the company for making necessary changes in the records with the Commercial Tax Department. It is submitted that the petitioner has ceased to have any connection with the running of the company since 2010. While so, Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 notices were issued to the petitioner as per
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
