Case Law Details
M. Jaiganesh Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court has quashed an order freezing the personal bank account of M. Jaiganesh, President of Dayton Club, in a tax default case. The club, with its own TIN, PAN, and bank account, had defaulted on tax payments, leading to attachment proceedings. While the club’s account was justifiably frozen, Jaiganesh’s personal account (No. 612101502039) at ICICI Bank was also frozen after his name appeared alongside the club’s in the assessment order.
The petitioner contended that his personal account could not be frozen for the club’s liability. The Court concurred, allowing the writ petition and directing ICICI Bank to lift the attachment on Jaiganesh’s personal account. The impugned order was quashed to the extent it fixed liability on the petitioner personally. This ruling clarifies that individual accounts cannot be frozen for institutional tax defaults when separate legal entities exist.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandaumus, to quash the impugned order, dated 17-03-2025 and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to release the bank account No. 612101502039 of the petitioner in 2nd respondent bank based on the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.04.2025.
2.The petitioner is the president of a club, namely Dayton Club, which is having a separate TIN number, PAN number and a separate bank account in ICICI Bank in Account No.61440107117. While the club has defaulted in paying the tax, the respondents have initiated proceedings and have attached the bank account belonging to the club. However, when the petitioner’s name was found in the assessment order along with the club name, the petitioner’s personal account was also frozen by the respondent bank. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s personal account cannot be frozen when the liability is fixed on the club.
3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition. The impugned order is quashed to the extent the liability is fixed on the petitioner. Consequently, the 2nd respondent bank is directed to lift the attachment of petitioner’s personal account No. 612101502039.
4. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
