Tax Liability Dispute Resolved: Deceased Father's Business Assessed with Procedural Fairness and Opportunity for Proper Hearing

HC quashed impugned tax demand orders against petitioner regarding deceased father's business liability under CGST Act. Court remitted case for fresh assessment, directing respondent to provide notice copy and petitioner to respond within two months. Respondent ordered to pass new orders expeditiously, ensuring petitioner's right to be heard in tax proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order and demand order regarding deceased father's business liability under CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 and the consequential demand orders dated 26.04.2024 and 01.05.2024, pertaining to the demand due from the petitioner's deceased father's business. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed after the death of the father and claimed to have not taken over the business. The court noted the petitioner's potential liability as a legal representative under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. Referring to a previous writ petition by the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh assessment, emphasizing the petitioner's right to defend the tax liability.

The court directed the respondent to provide a copy of the notice preceding the impugned order to the petitioner within 30 days and instructed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within two months. The respondent was required to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with the law expeditiously, preferably within three months. The court highlighted the importance of the petitioner's cooperation in the process and ensured that the petitioner would have an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings. Given the previous setting aside of an order under similar circumstances for the assessment year in question, the court found no reason to deviate from the decision and allowed the writ petition, with no costs imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.

---