Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The court held that the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to a deceased sole proprietor is non-est in law. A sole proprietorship concern's identity is not distinct from the sole proprietor. Since the sole proprietor, Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta of M/s S.K. Gupta & Co., has expired, the SCN was issued to a non-existent person. While the legal representative or any person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business is liable to pay the dues, the SCN should have been issued to them, not the deceased taxpayer. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in Unnikrishnan R case, the court set aside the impugned SCN but clarified that the respondents can issue a notice to the legal representative or any other person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business.
The court held that the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to a deceased sole proprietor is non-est in law. A sole proprietorship concern's identity is not distinct from the sole proprietor. Since the sole proprietor, Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta of M/s S.K. Gupta & Co., has expired, the SCN was issued to a non-existent person. While the legal representative or any person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business is liable to pay the dues, the SCN should have been issued to them, not the deceased taxpayer. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in Unnikrishnan R case, the court set aside the impugned SCN but clarified that the respondents can issue a notice to the legal representative or any other person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
