TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Show-cause notice to deceased proprietor deemed illegal under Central Excise Act</h1> The Tribunal held that issuing a show-cause notice to a deceased proprietor was illegal, rendering the subsequent proceedings invalid. Citing legal ... Proceedings against deceased - demand/recovery - whether deceased should be issued a SCN and a proceeding under that SCN is legal and correct or otherwise? - Held that: - the proprietor of the appellants firm Shri Ramesh R. Shewale died on 02.01.2014 and the SCN was issued on 15.12.2014 - There is no provision under the CEA and Rules made thereunder to issue a SCN to a dead person. The SCN issued to the proprietary concern is ab initio illegal. The entire proceedings flowing from the SCN is also vitiated - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved: Whether a deceased person should be issued a show-cause notice and if the proceeding under that notice is legal and correct.Analysis:1. Deceased Person Issued Show-Cause Notice:The appeal filed questioned the issuance of a show-cause notice to a deceased individual. The appellant's consultant argued that since the proprietor had passed away before the notice was issued, it was incorrect to serve such a notice to a deceased person. The consultant relied on legal precedents to support this argument.2. Legal Provisions and Precedents:The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Central Excise Act and related rules to determine if there was any provision allowing the issuance of a show-cause notice to a deceased person. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, such as the case of D. Matai and Vira & Co., where it was held that initiating proceedings against a deceased sole proprietor was not sustainable in the absence of specific legal provisions.3. Judicial Decisions and Rulings:The Tribunal cited the decision in the case of D. Matai where it was emphasized that no proceedings could be initiated against a dissolved firm after the death of the sole proprietor. Similarly, in the case of Vira & Co., it was ruled that serving a show-cause notice to the legal heir of a deceased sole proprietor was not permissible without specific legal provisions.4. Final Decision and Ruling:Based on the legal analysis and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that issuing a show-cause notice to a deceased proprietor was illegal ab initio. Therefore, the entire proceeding stemming from such a notice was deemed vitiated. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.5. Summary:In summary, the Tribunal ruled that serving a show-cause notice to a deceased individual, in this case, a proprietor, was not legally permissible under the Central Excise Act and related rules. The judgments and legal precedents cited supported the decision that such actions were invalid. As a result, the show-cause notice issued to the proprietary concern was deemed illegal from the outset, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, relevant legal provisions, judicial decisions, and the final ruling by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
