Personal liability of company office-bearers under carrier tax law depends on statutory definition and proof of agency

The statutory definition of "carrier" under the inland air travel tax regime covered the person undertaking passenger carriage and could extend to agents or others acting on the carrier's behalf, but it did not create general vicarious liability for a company chairman or director merely by virtue of office. Personal property could be attached only where the person was shown to fall within the statutory liability net, and such attachment also required observance of natural justice. On the facts, there was no material showing that the chairman acted as an agent or representative of the carrier, and prior departmental correspondence had stated that no tax was recoverable from him; the attachment of his personal property was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chairman of a company carrying on inland air travel operations could be treated as a "carrier" and made personally liable for inland air travel tax, interest and penalty, and whether the attachment of his personal property was sustainable.

Analysis: The definition of "carrier" under the governing finance law covered the person or authority undertaking carriage of passengers and included agents, representatives or others acting on behalf of such carrier. The statutory recovery provisions authorised attachment of property belonging to, or under the control of, the carrier or other person liable, but the enactment did not create any general vicarious liability on the Chairman or directors merely because they were office-bearers of the company. An order attaching personal property had civil consequences and could not be made without compliance with natural justice. On the facts, there was no material showing that the petitioner had acted as an agent, representative or other person on behalf of the carrier, and the authorities had earlier stated that no tax was recoverable from him.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be proceeded against as a carrier on the facts proved, and the attachment of his personal property was unsustainable and was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a clear statutory basis creating personal or vicarious liability, an office-bearer of a company cannot be treated as the taxable carrier or subjected to attachment of personal property without proof that he falls within the statutory definition and without observance of natural justice.

---