Allowed

Dr.a.D.Krishnan v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Kerala HC17 May 2016WP(C)/17559/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the personal properties of Directors of a public company cannot be attached for company sales tax dues. Consequently, the attachment of four specific documents listed as the petitioner's personal properties is vacated, while the validity of the tax demand itself remains reserved for separate challenge.

What did the court decide?

The attachment of properties covered by Document Nos. 3014/1985, 2994/1985, 2973/1985 and 2962/1985 is vacated and the Revenue authority is directed to make necessary revenue record entries within thr

Dr.a.D.Krishnan Vs the Assistant Commissioner… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016/27TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17559 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER : -

¶7

DR.A.D.KRISHNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, 34/754,755, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 24.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS : -

¶10

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL SALES TAX, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 24.

¶13

THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 24.

¶14

R1-R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LIJU V. STEPHEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-05-2016 ALONG WITH W.P. (C) No. 10084 OF 2016. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 17559 of 2013 (T)

¶17

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -

¶20

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF M/S VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF M/S VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 22-06-2013. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED No. 2962/1985. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED No. 2973/1985. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED No. 2994/1985. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED No. 3014/1985. EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH SALES TAX EXEMPTION IS GIVEN TO M/S VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶26

--------------------------------W.P (C) No. 17559 of 2013 & W.P (C) No. 10084 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 17^th day of May, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioners in these writ petitions are Directors of M/s. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd, which is a Public Limited Company and at the relevant time they were Joint Managing Directors. They have approached this Court challenging Exhibit P3 by which their personal properties have been attached with reference to certain amounts payable by the Company during the period 1994-1995. Petitioners have a case that the Company is exempted from paying sales tax as per Sales Tax Exemption Notification issued by the Secretary, Board of Revenue (Taxes) as per proceedings dated 11.06.1997 (Exhibit P9). That apart, their contention is that personal properties of the Directors cannot be attached for recovering amounts due from the Company. Counter affidavit is filed in W.P. (C) No. 17559/2013. It is inter alia stated that attachments have been effected against the personal properties of the petitioners as well

¶30

W.P (C) Nos. 17559/13 & 10084/16

¶31

¶32

as the properties of the defaulted company. Paragraph 6 of the

¶33

counter affidavit reads as under:

¶34

“6. It is further submitted that, the records in Edappally Sub Registry was verified and it was found that the following properties attached under Section 36 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are the personal properties of the petitioner.

¶35

Sl	Village	Sy. No.	Extent	Document No.
No.
		79/5-1	0.85 Are	3014/1985
1	Edappally (N)	79/6	0.20 Are	3014/1985
2	''	79/5-1	1.41 Are	2994/1985
3	''	79/5-1	1.41 Are	2973/85
4	''	79/5-1	1.49 Are	2962/85
			5.36 Are

¶36

The following properties attached U/s 36 are the properties owned by the defaulter company.

¶37

Sl.No.	Village	Sy. No.	Extent(Are)	Document No.
1	Edappally (S)	159/4	4.86 Are	5533/1980
2	''	159/4	5.26 Are	5612/1980
3	''	159/4	4.05 Are
4	''	159/3	0.15 Are
5		159/4	1.26 Are	1747/1987
6		159/3	0.32 Are
7		159/4	1.21 Are	1745/87
8		159/4	1.21 Are	1561/87
9		159/4	2.43 Are	448/1985
		Total	20.75 Are

¶38

W.P (C) Nos. 17559/13 & 10084/16

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10084/2016 submits that the property which is referred to as personal properties of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 17559/2013 is jointly owned by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10084/2016 and the said writ petition is for excluding attachment with reference to the said properties as well.

¶41

Having regard to the fact that it is an admitted position that the personal properties of the Directors of a public company cannot be attached for the sales tax dues, I am of the view that the properties covered by Document Nos. 3014/1985, 2994/1985, 2973/1985 and 2962/1985 cannot be attached and therefore any attachment made pursuant to Exhibit P3 with reference to the said property is liable to be vacated.

¶42

As far as the demand in terms of Exhibit P3 is concerned, it is for the company to take appropriate proceedings challenging the said demand based on Exhibit P9 and the said right is reserved.

¶43

W.P (C) Nos. 17559/13 & 10084/16

¶44

¶45

These writ petitions are therefore disposed of as under:

¶46

(i) The attachment of properties covered by Document Nos. 3014/1985, 2994/1985, 2973/1985 and 2962/1985 shall stand vacated.

¶47

(ii) The Revenue authority/Sub Registrar shall make necessary entries in the revenue records with reference to the vacating of the attachment, which shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶48

judgment.

¶49

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶50

DMR/-

Dr.a.D.Krishnan v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.D.Krishnan v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijomon Joseph Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Joy A.L Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

K.P.Kesavan Nambeesan Vs K.R.Jothilal

Dr.J.Hareendran Nair Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Paragon Steels Private Limited Vs the Intelligence Officer

Suma Ravindran Vs the Authorized Officer