The Madras High Court sets aside an order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer against a dead person.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “the impugned order was passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer/respondent against a dead person, who was passed away on 21.11.2019. In such case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”
Facts of the case:
The assessee/petitioner's wife, who was the proprietor of M/s. S.R. Steels, passed away on 21.11.2019. Subsequently, the Deputy State Tax Officer (respondent) issued a show-cause notice and passed an impugned order on 07.02.2024 against the assessee/petitioner's wife, despite her being deceased.
The assessee/petitioner filed a petition before the Madras High Court challenging the order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer. He requested the Court to grant him an opportunity to present his case, as the sole legal heir of the deceased, before the Deputy State Tax Officer. Additionally, he requested the Court to de-freeze his bank account.
Since the assessee/petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased, the department requested the Court to direct the assessee to file a reply to the show-cause notice. The department also requested the Court to remit the matter back to the Deputy State Tax Officer, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount by the assessee.
Observations of the High Court:
The bench stated that it appears that the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 was passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer against a dead person, who was passed away on 21.11.2019. In such case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Further, since the assessee/petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the assessee to establish his case on merits, added the bench.
The bench directed the assessee to file a reply within a period of two weeks.
“The impugned orders itself have been set aside, therefore, the attachment made on the bank account of the assessee/petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is lifted. As a sequel, the respondent is directed to instruct the concerned Bank to release the attachment and de-freeze the bank account of the assessee/petitioner, immediately upon the production of proof with regard to the payment of 10% of the demand amount by the petitioner as stated above.” added the bench.
In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Deputy State Tax Officer/respondent for fresh consideration.
Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: Manoharan S Sundaram
Counsel for Respondent/ Department: G. Nanmaran, Special Government Pleader
Case Title: M/s. S. R. Steels v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No.25129 of 2024