- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. From the respondents' side, a counter -affidavit and two supplementary counter -affidavits have been filed.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the act of the respondents trying to recover trade tax dues against the company known as Idol Commerce Private Limited, Kanpur, of which at one time the petitioners were admittedly directors. The petitioners claim to have resigned from the directorship and in any case, they contend that even if the petitioners continued to be directors, the trade tax dues could not be recovered from the personal assets of the directors as the liability of the petitioners as directors is also limited.
(3.) THE defence of the Trade Tax Department in the counter -affidavit appears to be that the resignation from directorship was not intimated by the petitioners to the Trade Tax Department till quite late. The second defence of the department is based upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated March 4, 1998 in Writ Petition No. 138 of 1984, Raghunath Rai Talwar v. State of U.P., which according to the trade tax department lays down the law that recovery of trade tax dues is permissible from the personal assets of the directors of the company.;