ORDER : Heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) for the respondent department and perused the materials placed before this Court including the written instruction given by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai, dated 18.08.2008. 2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the impugned notice dated 24.01.2005 issued by the second respondent, in and by which, the petitioner was informed that there is arrears of sales tax pertaining to M/s. Interactive Learning Solution (P) Limited for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the TNGST Act, 1959, that is for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. The petitioner, on receipt of the earlier notice dated 03.01.2005, sent a letter dated 18.01.2005 to the second respondent. By referring to the said letter, the respondent stated in the impugned notice that the petitioner had resigned as Director of the above said Company only on 28.08.2001 and only after the accrual of arrears of sales tax, the petitioner had resigned and hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the arrears of sales tax, or else the petitioner should get the clearance from the Commercial Tax Officer, Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai. The written instruction given by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai, is also to the said effect, which states that since the petitioner resigned from the position of the Director of the Company only on 28.08.2001, he is liable to pay the arrears of sales tax. Further, it is seen that the dealer/Company had filed an appeal against the order passed by the Revisional Authority and the same was dismissed by order dated 06.01.2004 and at the time of filing of an appeal, the Company had paid a sum of Rs. 40,995/- on 22.04.2003, being 12.5% of the disputed tax and thus, the arrears was reduced to Rs. 2,86,965/-. It is further stated that the said Company was taken over by M/s. Innovestment Cyber Kids (P) Limited, during 2000-2001. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent did not evoke any response. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company as per the records maintained by the second respondent and therefore, a requisition was made to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent did not evoke any response. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company as per the records maintained by the second respondent and therefore, a requisition was made to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. After hearing the learned counsels appearing on either side and perusing the materials placed on record, the legal issue which would arise for consideration in the instant case is, whether the petitioner being a Director of the Private Limited Company which was an assessee on the file of the second respondent under the provisions of the TNGST Act, is liable to pay arrears of sales tax, that too, after he had resigned as a Director of the Company. 4. In Sri George J. Mathew v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bodinayakanoor Theni District and three others ( 2002 (1) CTC 285 ), the petitioner was Director in Indian Cardamom Growers Trading Corporation Limited registered under the Indian Companies Act and he resigned from the Directorship and the Company had also filed Form-32 with the Registrar of Companies. Subsequently, the petitioner therein received a notice alleging that there is arrears of sales tax due and payable by the Company during the period prior to his resignation as Director of the Company. The Court took into consideration of Section 19-B of the TNGST Act which gives power to the authorities to recover the tax from the Director of the Company at the time of winding up of the Company and held that such provision would be applicable only if the Company is wound up. The Court also took into consideration of Section 18 of the CST Act, which deals with the liability of Directors of Private Company in liquidation and held that even if any Private Company is wound up, the person, who was a Director during the period for which the tax is due, is also jointly and severally liable to pay the arrears. The Court also took note of a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Maddi Swarna v. Commercial Tax Officer (124 STC 203 (AP)), which arose under the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act which is also in pari-materia to Section 16-B of the TNGST Act and ultimately, the demand notice was quashed. The Court also took note of a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Maddi Swarna v. Commercial Tax Officer (124 STC 203 (AP)), which arose under the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act which is also in pari-materia to Section 16-B of the TNGST Act and ultimately, the demand notice was quashed. The case on hand is also identical to that of the case dealt with in Sri George J. Mathew (cited supra). 5. I had an occasion to consider the similar issue and by following the decision of Sri George J. Mathew (cited supra) as well as Chamundeeswari and P.R. Sridharan v. Commercial Tax Officer, Vellore ( 2007 (6) VST 399 (Mad)), I have set aside the similar demand notice in W.P. No. 9373 of 2008, dated 19.11.2014 (G.V. Sukumara v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Velachery Assessment Circle, Chenani) and in W.P.No.16025 of 2008 (G.V. Sukumara v. The Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai). 6. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner is no longer the Director of the Company as he had resigned on 28.08.2001 and a certified copy of the Form-32 has been placed before this Court for consideration. In the written instruction given by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai, dated 18.08.2008, to the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), it is admitted that the Company has been taken over by another Company in 2000-2001. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the Company has been wound up or it is under liquidation. In such circumstances, applying the above referred decisions, the only conclusion that can be arrived is that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the default committed by the Company. 7. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands allowed by setting aside the impugned notice. No Costs.