Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
