TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (10) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y sales tax for the year 1948-49, an offence punishable under S. 15 (b), Madras General Sales Tax Act. The case against them was that the company exported groundnut oil through Messra. Raleigh Brothers, and in respect of that transaction, sales tax to the tune of ₹ 3285-6-3 was payable, that notice in form B demanding payment of the tax was served upon the petitioner, the Managing Director, on 16.3.1950, and that in spite of it, this amount was not paid within the time allowed. 2. One of the defence put forward on behalf of the petitioner was that the company was not liable to pay the demanded as it was already collected from their agents, Messrs. Raleigh Brothers. The pleas raised on behalf of other accused are not material in this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice of demand of tax could not be prosecuted for default of the firm. That ruling is not apposite for the reason that in this case, it is the company that is prosecuted and not particular individuals alone. Further, the learned Judge has not decided the question whether an individual partner is personally liable for payment of taxes. 5. To the same effect is the ruling in -- AIR1953Mad332 (B)'. Somasundaram J. relied on -- AIR1951Mad886 (1) (A)' in support of his conclusion that some of the partners alone cannot be prosecuted for failure to pay taxes assessed on a firm. So these rulings do not in any way help the petitioner. On the other hand, there is an incidental remark in the judgment of Mr. Justice Somasundaram, that every ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... individuals constituting the company cannot be held responsible for the default in payment of such taxes. In this context, a passage from Lindley on Companies 6th edition at page 299 extracted at page 323 in -- 'Harihar Prasad v. Bansi Missir', is apposite: "The Society (speaking of an Industrial Provident Society spoken of as the Co-operative Societies in England, see Halsbury Laws of England Vol. 17 p. 3) being incorporated, must sue and be sued by its corporate name, and its members are individually liable for its debts and engagements only so far as the statute allows. As in the case of companies registered under the Companies Act, 1862, so in the case of societies registered under the Act now in question, the members are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s all revenue, taxes, cesses and rates whether payable to the Union of India or a State, or to local authority, due from the company, at the date hereinafter mentioned and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date." It is implicit in this section that even revenues, taxes, cesses and rates payable to the State are only recoverable from the assets of the company. Therefore, the directors cannot be personally proceeded against in 'respect of revenues', taxes etc. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor sought to support the judgment of the lower Court on the basis of Ss. 8 (B) (2) and 15 (n), Madras General Sales Tax Act, and S. 386, Criminal P. C. I do not think these sections have any relevancy in....