Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the wife of late S.Shanmugam, who was the proprietor of M/s.Yeses International, Chennai. It has been stated that the petitioner is in no way connected with the affairs of the said company. She is neither an assessee, nor a defaulter, in respect of the alleged tax arrears, as claimed by the first respondent Department. The petitioner is having a bank account bearing Account No.0046-D68657-050, in the second respondent Bank. While so, the second respondent had attached the bank account of the petitioner, vide letter, dated 10.12.2011, arbitrarily and illegally. 3. It has been further stated that, for the tax arrears said to be payable by the husband of the petitioner, his properties worth about Rs.40 crores had already been attached, by the first respondent Department. While so, the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, who had nothing to do with the company owned by her husband, is improper and illegal. 4. It had also been stated that no proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner, under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the alleged tax arrears of her deceased husband, which had arisen under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It had also been stated that the first respondent Department had not treated the petitioner, as a legal representative of her deceased husband. On the contrary the petitioner had been treated, as a defaulter of the alleged tax arrears, said to be payable by her husband. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, reported in T.PounrajathiVs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1992 (1) M.T.C.R 558], wherein, it had been held that the property of the wife of the assessee, who was not a partner in the partnership firm, in which her husband was a partner, cannot be proceeded against, for the recovery of the arrears of the firm, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Tamilnadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 6. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had pointed out that Section 26 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, empowers the first respondent to proceed against the assets of the deceased, in the hands of his legal representatives. However, he had not been in a position to state as to how the bank account belonging to the petitioner, exclusively, could be attached, invoking the provisions of Section 26 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Nothing has been shown before this Court to justify the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner with the second respondent bank. 7. From a reading of section 26 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, it is clear that when a dealer dies, his executor, administrator, or other legal representatives shall be deemed to be the dealer for the purposes of this Act. However, in respect of any tax or fee assessed as payable by any such dealer, or any tax, or fee which would have been payable by him, under the said Act, could be proceeded against the executor, administrator or other legal representatives, only to the extent of the assets of the assessee in his hands. Therefore, unless, it is clearly shown that the assets of the deceased husband of the petitioner had passed on to the petitioner no action can be initiated by the respondent Department to attach or have a claim against such assets. Thus, it is clear that the personal bank account of the petitioner cannot be attached, by the first respondent Department, for the alleged tax arrears of her deceased husband, as in the present case. As such, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent, dated 7.12.2011, stands quashed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.