![]()
Madras High Court Quashes
Tax Order Against Deceased Person, Remits Case for Fresh Consideration
By Yogesh
Verma (CS/LLB) / 2 min. read / GST Case
Law
Case Summary: M/s. S.R. Steels vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Party Name: M/s.
S.R. Steels (represented by Mr. Anandbabu, Legal Heir)
Case Number: W.P.
No. 25129 of 2024
Date of Order: September
2, 2024
Court:
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Judge:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Facts of the Case: The
petitioner, M/s. S.R. Steels, is represented by Mr. Anandbabu, the legal heir
of the deceased proprietor (the petitioner's wife), who passed away on November
21, 2019. The respondent, Deputy State Tax Officer of Hosur (South) II Circle,
had issued a show cause notice and passed an impugned order dated February 7,
2024, against the deceased proprietor. The petitioner filed a writ petition
challenging the order issued against a dead person, arguing that it is invalid,
as no opportunity was given to the legal heir to present their case.
Additionally, the petitioner requested the court to de-freeze the bank account
attached by the respondent.
Submission by the
Petitioner: The petitioner contended that:
1. The impugned order was
passed against a deceased individual, making it invalid.
2. The petitioner, being
the legal heir, was not provided with an opportunity to present his case.
3. The petitioner
requested the court to set aside the impugned order and to allow him a chance
to respond to the show cause notice.
4. The petitioner also
sought the de-freezing of his bank account, which had been attached by the
respondent.
Submission by the
Respondent: The respondent, represented by the Special
Government Pleader, acknowledged that:
1. The order had been
passed against a dead person.
2. The legal heir should
be allowed to respond to the show cause notice.
3. The case should be
remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the payment
of 10% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
Findings and Judgment: Upon
hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case materials, the
court found that:
1. The impugned order was
indeed passed against a deceased person, making it invalid.
2. It is necessary to
provide the legal heir (the petitioner) an opportunity to present his case.
Judgment:
1. The impugned order
dated February 7, 2024, was set aside.
2. The case was remitted
back to the respondent for fresh consideration, with the condition that the
petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks from
September 2, 2024.
3. The petitioner was
directed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks after
receiving a copy of the order.
4. The respondent must
issue a 14-day notice for a personal hearing and pass an appropriate order on
merits.
5. The attachment of the
petitioner’s bank account was lifted, and the respondent was directed to
instruct the concerned bank to de-freeze the account upon proof of payment of
the 10% disputed tax amount.
Conclusion: The
court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner an opportunity to
present his case. The petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed amount
before the impugned order would be deemed fully vacated. The petitioner’s bank
account was ordered to be de-frozen once proof of payment was provided.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
