Sales Tax Officer vs K.J. Augustine

Antony Dominic, J.—The respondent who filed the writ petition was the secretary of a co-operative society, which was an assessee under the KGST Act. The respondent resigned from his employment on November 18, 1998 and the board of directors of the society, as per exhibit PI resolution dated November 30, 1998, accepted his resignation. Long thereafter, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 80,07,077 towards the sales tax dues of the society for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1991-92. The writ petition was filed by the respondent, challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him. By the impugned judgment, learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and this judgment is now called in question by the respondents in the writ petition. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The recovery action in question was initiated relying on section 22(4) of the KGST Act, which reads thus:

"Where any dealer fails to pay any tax collected by him under sub-section (1) to the Government, any person or persons responsible for such collection on behalf of the dealer including a director, manager, secretary or other officers of a company shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of such amounts to the Government forthwith as if it were a tax due from him?"

Admittedly, section 22(4) was incorporated in the statute only with effect from April 1, 1999 which is long after the relevant assessment years and even after the resignation of the respondent from the service of the society. A provision in the nature of section 22(4), in the absence of anything indicating that the same is retrospective, can also be prospective. If that be so, this provision may not have any impact in so far as the assessment years in question, viz., 1981-82 to 1991-92 are concerned. For that sole reason, we feel that the learned Judge was fully justified in allowing the writ petition. Appeal is dismissed. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the appellants in proceeding to recover its dues from whoever is liable for the same.