In a noteworthy judgment, the Madras High Court has quashed an order passed against a deceased individual by the Deputy State Tax Officer, directing that fresh proceedings be conducted to provide an opportunity for the legal heir to present his case. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, presiding over the matter, emphasized that passing an order against a dead person is inherently invalid and that due process must be followed to allow the deceased’s legal representative to respond. The decision has significant implications for administrative actions taken without proper acknowledgement of changes in parties due to death.
Background of the Case
The case, M/s. S.R. Steels vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer [W.P. No. 25129 of 2024], involved a dispute between M/s. S.R. Steels, represented by its legal heir Mr. Anandbabu, and the Deputy State Tax Officer of Hosur (South) II Circle, Tamil Nadu. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order dated February 7, 2024, issued against the deceased proprietor of M/s. S.R. Steels, and to provide an opportunity for the legal heir to present his case.
The petitioner, Mr. Anandbabu, the legal heir and representative of M/s. S.R. Steels, contended that his wife, the original proprietor of the firm, had passed away on November 21, 2019. Despite this, the respondent, Deputy State Tax Officer, had issued a show cause notice and subsequently passed an order against the deceased proprietor. The petitioner argued that such an order against a dead person was legally untenable and requested the court to set aside the impugned order and de-freeze his bank account.
Legal Issues Involved
The main legal issue before the court was whether an administrative order issued against a deceased person could stand and whether the legal heir should be given an opportunity to respond to the proceedings. The case also raised questions about the procedural fairness in issuing notices and orders without acknowledging the death of a party and providing due process for the surviving legal representatives.
Arguments by the Parties
For the Petitioner:
Advocate Mr. Manoharan S. Sundaram, representing the petitioner, argued that the impugned order was invalid as it was passed against a person who had passed away. He highlighted that the respondent’s failure to recognize the death of the original proprietor and their issuance of a show cause notice and subsequent order against a dead person was a gross violation of legal principles. He further requested the court to quash the impugned order, allow the petitioner to present his case, and de-freeze the petitioner’s bank account, which had been frozen due to the impugned order.
For the Respondent:
Advocate Mr. G. Nanmaran, Special Government Pleader representing the respondent, conceded to the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel. He requested the court to allow the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and suggested that the matter be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax amount.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, in his judgment dated September 2, 2024, observed:
“An order passed against a deceased person is non est in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. It is imperative that an opportunity is provided to the legal heir to present his case before any further proceedings are taken.”
The court set aside the impugned order dated February 7, 2024, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer, and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh. The court ordered that the petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, and the order setting aside the impugned order would take effect from the date of payment.
The court further directed:
1. The petitioner shall file a reply or objection along with any required documents within two weeks from receiving the copy of the order.
2. The respondent shall provide a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing to the petitioner after receiving the reply and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.
3. The attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, made due to the impugned order, is lifted, and the concerned bank should release the attachment immediately upon proof of payment of the 10% demand amount by the petitioner.
The case was disposed of with no costs, and the related miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
