Civil court must disputed Will and succession rights before GST authorities act on competing registrations.

GST authorities cannot determine the genuineness or validity of a disputed Will, or the resulting succession to a deceased proprietor's business, because questions of title, testamentary validity, and inheritance fall within civil jurisdiction. Where competing GST registrations depend on unresolved civil claims, interim suspension should be lifted and any cancellation or verification action deferred until the civil court decides the parties' rights. The article therefore states that the registrations were restored for the time being, while ultimate GST consequences were left to the outcome of the pending civil proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the genuineness and validity of the Will, and the consequential succession to the business of the deceased proprietor, could be adjudicated by the GST authorities; (ii) Whether the interim suspension of the competing GST registrations was liable to be revoked, with further action to be taken only after determination of the parties' rights in the pending civil suit.

Issue (i): Whether the genuineness and validity of the Will, and the consequential succession to the business of the deceased proprietor, could be adjudicated by the GST authorities.

Analysis: The dispute centred on rival claims to the business after the proprietor's death, each side relying on succession claims that depended on the authenticity of the Will. The competing assertions regarding genuineness, forged execution, succession, and entitlement to the business were already under adjudication before the civil court. Such questions of title, testamentary validity, and succession lie within civil jurisdiction and are not matters for determination by GST authorities.

Conclusion: The GST authorities could not decide the genuineness or validity of the Will, and the succession dispute had to be resolved by the civil court.

Issue (ii): Whether the interim suspension of the competing GST registrations was liable to be revoked, with further action to be taken only after determination of the parties' rights in the pending civil suit.

Analysis: Since the rights of the parties in the pending partition suit remained undecided, the competing registrations could not be permanently acted upon on the basis of unresolved civil claims. The interim suspension orders were therefore required to be lifted, while preserving the authority of the department to take lawful action after the civil court determined the parties' rights. The Court also directed that cancellation or verification of the respective registrations be considered only after such determination.

Conclusion: The interim suspensions were revoked, and the tax authorities were directed to proceed in accordance with law only after the civil court determined the parties' rights.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by restoring both registrations for the time being and leaving the ultimate question of succession and consequential GST action to the outcome of the pending civil proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legality of GST registration depends on a disputed Will and unresolved succession rights, the tax authorities must defer to the civil court and cannot adjudicate the testamentary dispute themselves.

---