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>GST registration cancellation started against deceased proprietor, notice to dead person held invalid; fresh action allowed against heirs</h1> Proceedings for cancellation of GST registration initiated and concluded against a deceased proprietor were void. Applying the principle that a show cause ... Validity of proceedings initiated against the deceased - Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the case of Usha Gupta [2024 (10) TMI 130 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Delhi High Court held that 'In the present case, impugned SCN has not been issued to the legal representative of the deceased taxpayer but to the deceased taxpayer.' In the case of Unnikrishnan R. [2024 (7) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Madras High Court held that 'since the impugned order has been passed against the dead person, the impugned order is quashed by directing the respondents to issue a common notice to the petitioner representing the interest of the other legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased dealer Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter proceed in the manner known to law, in case the petitioner is carrying on the business of the deceased dealer Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai.' As can be seen from the aforesaid judgments, any proceedings/order against the petitioner's ex-proprietor would be rendered nullity, non est and void ab initio and the entire proceedings including the impugned order deserve to be quashed, reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The impugned orders are hereby quashed - petition allowed. Issues: Whether proceedings and orders issued to a deceased person (ex-proprietor) under Sections 74, 78 and 83 of the CGST Act are void and whether the impugned adjudication, summary and recovery orders should be quashed.Analysis: The Court examined the statutory framework concerning liability on death, notably Section 93 of the CGST Act, and applied precedents addressing issuance of show cause notices or orders to deceased persons. Where a sole proprietor has died, liability continues only if the business is carried on by a legal representative or other person, and any notice or adjudicatory step for recovery must be issued to that legal representative or person carrying on the business. Proceedings directed to a non-existent person (the deceased) are non est and amount to nullity. The Court also noted that quashing such orders does not prevent the respondents from issuing appropriate notice to the legal representative or other person and proceeding in accordance with law.Conclusion: Issue decided in favour of the petitioner (assessee): the impugned show cause, adjudication, summary and recovery orders issued to the deceased are quashed; liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate steps and issue notice to the legal representative or other person in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
