2024 (7) TMI 606 - HC - GST

Tax Recovery Against Deceased Dealer Halted: Legal Heirs Given Notice and Opportunity to Respond Under TNGST Act Section 93

Unnikrishnan R, Sujatha R, Nalinakshi Amma Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The State Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai

HC ruled that recovery proceedings against a deceased dealer under TNGST Act were invalid. The court quashed the impugned order and directed respondents ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to impugned order - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the dealer Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai has died on 11.10.2017 and that the petitioner is one of his legal heirs/legal representatives along with his mother R. Sujatha aged about 62 years, his sister Sreelekshmi aged about 33 years and his grand-mother Nalinakshi Amma aged about 84 years. The order that has been passed against the dead person is non-est in law. If the petitioner is carrying on the business of the deceased person, then, the remedy is available to the Department to proceed against the petitioner under Section 93 of the TNGST Act, 2017. It appears to be that the petitioner is not carrying on the business of the deceased person. Petition disposed off. Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order passed against deceased dealer, legal heirs not carrying on business, proper intimation of death, validity of recovery proceedings, remedy under TNGST Act, quashing of impugned order, issuance of common notice to legal heirs.The judgment pertains to a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the third respondent against a deceased dealer, Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai, under the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, son of the deceased dealer, argued that the order confirming the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice is invalid as it was passed against a deceased person. The Central Government Standing Counsel and Additional Government Pleader opposed the petition, stating lack of proper intimation about the death of the dealer and issuance of notices to which the family did not respond. They argued that the challenge to the impugned order lacked merit. The petitioner claimed to have orally informed officers about the death, but the respondents disputed this claim.After considering the arguments, the court acknowledged that the dealer had indeed passed away, and the petitioner, along with other legal heirs, were not carrying on the deceased's business. The court emphasized that an order against a deceased person is legally invalid. If the petitioner were conducting the deceased's business, the Department could proceed against them under Section 93 of the TNGST Act. However, since the impugned order was against the deceased, it was quashed. The court directed the respondents to issue a common notice to the petitioner representing the interests of all legal heirs within 30 days, allowing further proceedings if the petitioner was operating the deceased's business.In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper legal procedures and the necessity for valid notifications and actions, especially in cases involving deceased individuals and their legal representatives.