Baratam Satish Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner, son of Late B. Kameswara Rao, approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging an assessment order dated 25.01.2024 passed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Late B. Kameswara Rao was a registered person under the GST Act and carried on business in the name of M/s. Aravinda Enterprises. He passed away on 21.12.2021. It was stated that his tax consultant, who was managing his affairs, also expired on 04.03.2023. The business of the deceased was closed on 20.02.2023, and such closure was approved by the registering authority on 21.04.2023.
Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 16.08.2023 was issued for the period July 2017 to March 2018 proposing to levy tax under the CGST and SGST Acts, along with interest and an amount of ₹28,952 under the reverse charge mechanism. Based on this, assessment proceedings culminated in an order dated 25.01.2024.
The petitioner challenged this assessment on the ground that it was not in accordance with Section 93 of the GST Act. Section 93 deals with special provisions regarding liability to pay tax, interest, or penalty in cases where a taxable person dies. Under Section 93(1)(a), if the business of the deceased is continued after death by a legal representative or another person, such person is liable to pay the dues. Under Section 93(1)(b), if the business is discontinued, the legal representative is liable to pay the dues only out of the estate of the deceased and only to the extent the estate can meet the charge, regardless of whether the dues were determined before or after death.
