Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is one of the directors of a private limited company named "Ravathy Exports (PVT) Limited." The petitioner filed the present Original Petition (O.P.) seeking a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from enforcing recovery of any money against him pursuant to Ext. P1, and also prayed for quashing of Ext. P1.

Ext. P1 is a notice dated 2-6-1982 issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. It seeks recovery from the movable property of the defaulter named therein (the petitioner) for arrears of sales-tax said to amount to Rs. 65,201.80, relating to the year 1976–1977, arising from an assessment order effected on the company.

The petitioner's primary factual contention is that he is not the defaulter and that arrears of tax due from the company cannot be recovered personally from him. The recovery proceedings evidenced by Ext. P1 are attacked as illegal and unauthorised.

Procedurally, no counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents in the O.P. At the hearing the learned Government Pleader (Mr. Hassan) appeared but was not able to identify or cite any provision of law authorising personal recovery from the petitioner.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Revenue can proceed against the petitioner in his personal capacity (a director of the company) for arrears of sales-tax said to be due from the company.
2. Whether Ext. P1, the Revenue Recovery Act notice issued against the petitioner personally, is lawful and enforceable.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner asserted that he is not an assessee for sales-tax and that no amount of sales-tax is due and payable by him personally.
• He contended that arrears of tax due from the company cannot be recovered from him individually because the company is a distinct legal entity and the recovery provisions do not authorise proceeding against him in his personal capacity for the company's tax arrears.
• The petitioner alleged that Ext. P1 recovery proceedings are illegal and unauthorised and therefore sought quashing of Ext. P1 and a writ of prohibition restraining enforcement.

Respondents' Position

• No counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents; therefore their factual or legal response to the petitioner's averments is not on record.
• At hearing, the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents was unable to cite any statutory provision or legal authority that permitted the Revenue to proceed personally against the petitioner (a director) for arrears allegedly due from the company.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded from the undisputed procedural posture: because the respondents did not file any counter-affidavit, the averments in the O.P. had to be accepted prima facie. On that basis the court treated the petitioner's factual statements — that he was not an assessee and that no sales-tax was payable by him personally — as unchallenged for the purposes of the decision.

The court observed that the petitioner was named as the defaulter in Ext. P1 but that the arrears claimed arose from an assessment on the company. The court noted the proposition (as asserted by the petitioner in the petition) that the company is a distinct and different legal entity, and the Government Pleader was unable to point to any provision of law authorising the Revenue to proceed against the petitioner personally for the company's liability.

Applying those facts and the absence of any legal justification by the respondents, the court concluded that Ext. P1 — the notice issued against the petitioner in his personal capacity — was unauthorised and illegal. Consequently, the court quashed Ext. P1 and issued a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceeding with any recovery proceedings against the petitioner in his personal capacity.

The court further clarified the scope of its ruling: the decision did not prevent the Revenue from pursuing recovery against the company and its assets in accordance with law, nor did it preclude the Revenue from proceeding against the petitioner if it could be shown and substantiated that he possessed assets of the company. The court's reasoning therefore rested on (a) the uncontroverted averments in the petition, and (b) the absence of any cited legal provision authorising personal recovery from the petitioner for company tax arrears.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Original Petition is allowed; Ext. P1 is quashed; and a writ of prohibition is issued restraining the respondents from proceeding with recovery against the petitioner in his personal capacity.

Implications and direct effects:

• The respondents are prohibited from enforcing recovery proceedings personally against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P1.
• The Revenue remains free to pursue recovery of the arrears against the company and its assets in accordance with law.
• The Revenue is also not prevented from taking proceedings against the petitioner if it can be shown and substantiated that he possesses properties of the company — in that circumstance personal proceedings may be competent.
• There shall be no order as to costs in the O.P.
• The opinion does not articulate or establish any new precedent beyond the decision in this particular case; it resolves the petition on the facts and procedural posture presented.

Note: The opinion records two closely similar figures for the arrears (Rs. 65,201.80 in the Ext. P1 description and Rs. 65,202.30 in a later paragraph of the opinion). The summary reflects the figures as they appear in the provided text without reconciliation or inference.