TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (8) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue was not successful in realising the arrears of tax, etc., from the company, and that perhaps may be the reason for the Revenue to initiate proceedings for recovery of the aforesaid dues from the second petitioner. Accordingly the first respondent served on the second petitioner a notice under section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, for short, the Recovery Act, calling upon him to show cause why a warrant of arrest shall not be issued against him since the company has failed to remit the said dues. The second petitioner by his reply dated 29th June, 1985 has given the explanation thus: "I am in receipt of your letter No. R8 20586/84 dated the 19th June, 1985. The amounts mentioned in your letter are due and payable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrears due to Government." 5.. The second petitioner accordingly was arrested and put in civil prison. 6.. Exhibit P3 is under challenge in this original petition. 7.. Before I go into the merits of the case, I shall state the law, applicable to the case. Under the Sales Tax Act, a registered dealer whose total turnover for the year is not less than the amount specified in section 5 of the Act, is bound to pay tax on the said taxable turnover for that year. The tax, a dealer is liable to pay, is determined in terms of section 16 of the Act. The tax thus assessed shall be paid by the assessee, that is the dealer, within the time specified in the notice of demand, the Revenue would serve on him in form No. 14B prescribed under rules ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent initiated proceedings, under section 65 of the Recovery Act against the second petitioner, which resulted in exhibit P3 order. 8.. The question thus arising for consideration is whether the second petitioner can be treated as a defaulter within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act. To be a defaulter under the Sales Tax Act, a dealer who has been assessed to tax, should have failed to pay the said tax within the time stipulated in the notice of demand. In other words, until an assessee (dealer) is declared a defaulter, recovery proceedings cannot be initiated against the said person. 9.. It is not the case of the respondents that the Sales Tax Act by any provision therein has fastened any liability on a Director or the Managing Direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence to the provisions contained in the said enactment and it would be repugnant to the character of such enactment to add to the said rights and liabilities by referring to other laws (vide Ravulu Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras AIR 1956 SC 604). Unless provisions of other laws are expressly or by necessary implication incorporated in a codifying and amending Act such provisions have no relevance to decide questions directly falling under the codifying statute. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate case [1966] 17 STC 326 (SC); AIR 1966 SC 1295 supports this view. It therefore follows that in the absence of a specific provision in the Sales Tax Act fastening liability on the Director or the Managing Director of a company for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sought to be recovered from the second petitioner represent the arrears of tax assessed and found due by the first petitioner-company. Exhibit P3 proceedings of the District Collector therefore is one passed without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio. It is non est. 13.. The learned Advocate-General, however, submits that the second petitioner, inasmuch as he has been imprisoned in civil prison, cannot be set free even if this Court is to quash the order pursuant to which, he has been directed to be kept in civil prison. In support of this argument, he referred to the provisions contained in sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Kerala High Court Act. The said section provides that an application for the exercise of the powers conferre....