GST liability of deceased proprietor's business requires proof of continuation; unsupported demand against legal representative was set aside.

A petitioner was not shown to be liable for GST dues of his deceased father's proprietary concern as a legal representative under the CGST Act because the order contained no material proving continuation of the business after the proprietor's death. The petitioner had obtained a fresh registration in his own name, and the liability was fastened under section 93(1)(a) without evidence linking him to the deceased concern's ongoing operations. The HC found the order perverse and unsustainable, and set aside the demand for tax, interest and penalty against the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be held liable for the GST dues of his deceased 's proprietary concern as a legal representative under the CGST Act, and whether the impugned order was sustainable in the absence of material evidence showing continuation of the business by the petitioner.

Analysis: The deceased proprietor had already died before the impugned proceedings, and the petitioner had obtained a fresh registration in his own name. The order fastening liability on the petitioner proceeded on section 93(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but it did not disclose any material to show that the petitioner was continuing the father's business after his death. In these circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner was liable for the entire tax, interest and penalty of the deceased firm was unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be perverse and unsustainable, and the liability fastened on the petitioner was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---