Judgment :- SWAMIKKANNU J. The petition is for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural), Proceedings No. Nil dated November 20, 1982, and to quash the same. It is, inter alia, stated in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner that Dharma Oil Mills P. Ltd. had their business at No. 11/1, Venkatadri Naicken Street, Madras-12, and it was an assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, II, C. S. T. Zone IV, Madras-10. The petitioner was an ex-director of the said company along with three other directors by name A. Amirthalingam, Sankaran and Dharmar. One of the directors, Sankaran, sponsored the said company. The company was also registered under the Companies Act, 1956. A requisition was sent to the first respondent by the Commercial Tax Officer, Purasawalkam, to attach the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner under section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of Central sales tax under section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956, when any private company is wound up after the commencement of this Act, and any tax assessed on the company under this Act for any period, whether before or in the course of or after its liquidation, cannot be recovered, then, every person who was a director of the private company at any time during the period for which the tax is due shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax unless he proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company." * It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in case of misfeasance or breach of duty only the petitioner can be compelled to pay the penalty or the tax. Since he was not an active director, he cannot be now called upon to pay the tax as well as the penalty. This contention is untenable, because at no point of time, it has been proved that it was due to misfeasance or breach of duty that he had been called upon to pay the tax amount or penalty. Since he was not an active director, he cannot be now called upon to pay the tax as well as the penalty. This contention is untenable, because at no point of time, it has been proved that it was due to misfeasance or breach of duty that he had been called upon to pay the tax amount or penalty. All the directors were issued notice and he, as one among the directors, is liable to pay under the Act. Thus, we find that there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.