Read Time: 05 minutes
The case involved a tax dispute with a company formerly owned by a deceased proprietor, whose legal heir challenged an order by the Deputy State Tax Officer
In an interesting order, the Madras High Court earlier this week quashed an order issued against a deceased person, observing that legal proceedings against a dead person are invalid.
The case involved a tax dispute concerning M/s S.R. Steels, a company formerly owned by the late proprietor, whose legal heir contested the order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer in Hosur, Krishnagiri district.
The order in question, dated February 7, 2024, had been issued against the deceased proprietor of S.R. Steels, despite the fact that she had passed away on November 21, 2019.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy set aside the tax order and directed the petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased, to be given an opportunity to present his case.
The petitioner, represented by Adv Manoharan S. Sundaram, informed the court that the impugned order was passed without his knowledge and requested the court to allow him to respond to the allegations. He also sought the de-freezing of the company’s bank account, which had been frozen following the issuance of the tax order.
The Special Government Pleader, G. Nanmaran, representing the respondent, acknowledged the petitioner’s claim, agreeing that the proceedings were improperly initiated against the deceased. He requested the court to allow the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and remand the matter back for fresh consideration. Additionally, the respondent requested that the petitioner be required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a precondition for further hearings.
Court agreed to remit the case back to the tax department for fresh evaluation.
Justice Ramasamy directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks and directed the department to lift the attachment on the company’s bank account once the payment was made.
Court further ordered that the petitioner be given two weeks to file objections to the show cause notice, and the tax officer was directed to issue a clear notice for a personal hearing.
The judge also directed that the case be disposed of expeditiously, after considering the petitioner’s objections.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Court ordered immediate de-freezing of the petitioner’s bank account upon proof of payment of the disputed amount.
Case Title: M/s. S. R. Steels v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Please Login or Register
