Proceedings against a deceased dealer were quashed as a foundational defect tainted the notice, assessment and recovery action.

Proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased dealer were held unsustainable because the show-cause notice, assessment order and consequential recovery steps, including bank account freezing, all flowed from a foundational defect. The legal heir was found to have been unnecessarily impleaded despite no connection with the business. The impugned notice, assessment order and recovery action were quashed, while the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner if legally permissible for the outstanding demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice, assessment order and consequential recovery action issued in the name of a deceased dealer could be sustained, and whether the impugned actions were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The notice and order were issued against a person who had already died, and the subsequent recovery measures, including freezing of the bank account, flowed from those defective proceedings. The petitioner, a legal heir not connected with the business, was found to have been unnecessarily roped into the proceedings. In these circumstances, the proceedings suffered from a fundamental defect and could not be sustained, while leaving it open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner if legally permissible for the outstanding demand.

Conclusion: The impugned notice, order and consequential recovery action were quashed and set aside, and relief was granted in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings initiated and continued in the name of a deceased person are unsustainable and liable to be quashed when they form the basis of consequential recovery action.

---