Judgment :- The petitioner filed original petition praying to call for the records of the respondent relating to notice Rc.No.1411/02/A3 and set aside the notice therein dated 22.09.2003. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the company M/s. Triton Fine Mills Pvt. Ltd., was a dealer under the provisions of Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner was earlier the director of the company and ceased to be such since 1999 and notice in Form 32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies informing about the petitioner ceasing to be the Director of the company. Further, the company itself has ceased to carry on the business after 1997-98, but still the company is on the roll of the Registrar of Companies and has not been wound up. For the alleged arrears of sales tax, surcharge and additional sales tax and penalty due from the said company for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 a notice dated 22.09.2003 was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.19,19,058.78 stating that the petitioner was the director of the said company. The petitioner was threatened that the immovable and movable properties of the petitioner could be distraint and a complaint has been filed before the Magistrate Court. Fearing that any distraint order against the properties of the petitioner could be passed, the petitioner filed O.P.No.1246 of 2003, which was subsequently transferred and is converted to this writ petition. 3. The petitioner was threatened that the immovable and movable properties of the petitioner could be distraint and a complaint has been filed before the Magistrate Court. Fearing that any distraint order against the properties of the petitioner could be passed, the petitioner filed O.P.No.1246 of 2003, which was subsequently transferred and is converted to this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government counsel who admits that the liability of the director of the company, for that matter, retired director of the company has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Sri George J.Mathew v. CTO, Bodinayakanur, Theni district, 2002 (1) CTC 285 by a learned single Judge of this Court and in the case of Chamundeswari v. CTO, Vellore Rural in Writ Petitions No.3085 and 3086 of 2000, by an order dated 05.01.2007, I have held that a company is a legal entity by itself and it can sue or can be sued as a legal entity and any dues from the company has to be recovered only from the company and not from its directors, by relying on the judgments of various High Courts, such as, the cases in Desiraju Venkatakrishna Sarma, In re, (1955) XXV Company Cases 32, Lalita Shivaram Ubhaykar v. CTO, XII Circle, Bangalore, (1975) 35 STC 267 , Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, ((1984) 55 STC 209), Punalur Paper Mills Ltd v. District Collector, Quilon, ((1985) 60 STC 193), Nishad Patel v. State of Kerala ((1999) 113 STC 395), Subash Chandra Kankaria v. State of Rajasthan ((1999) 114 STC 413. 4. In view of the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the view that the notice impugned in this writ petition has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.