Bank Account Attached Without Opportunity of Personal Hearing: High Court Quashes Order

The petitioner filed a writ petition to cancel the order dated 22.02.2025 and the consequential order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the state tax officer. The tax authority issued a notice in DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024, to which the petitioner submitted a reply along with supporting documents. However, the department issued the final orders without considering the reply and giving a chance to be heard. This clearly violated the principles of natural justice.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that even after the petitioner replied to the notice issued in Form DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 along with the supporting documents, the state tax officer issued the final order and did not even give a chance for a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

Additionally, the petitioner also filed a rectification application against the final order, but it was rejected. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner’s bank account had been frozen due to the impugned orders.

Madras High Court Decision

The high court observed that the respondent, the state tax officer, has passed the final order without giving a chance to be heard to the petitioner. This violated the principle of natural justice. The court set aside the final order dated 22.02.2025 and the consequential order dated 22.05.2025 and gave the following instructions:

• The petitioner must file their reply with the supporting relevant documents within two weeks.
• The tax officer must consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and then pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner’s side within 8 weeks.
• The tax department is also directed to de-freeze the petitioner’s bank account by issuing appropriate directions.