B.Nagendra Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a writ petition filed by the son and legal representative of Late B. Hanumantha Reddy, who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill and had died on 08.08.2020. The petitioner challenged Assessment Proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.04.2023.
The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were initiated against a dead/non-existing person and were therefore invalid in law. Despite this objection, appeals had been filed before the Appellate Authority in respect of the tax periods 2017-18 to 2022-23. Those appeals were dismissed by a Common Order dated 16.04.2026. The petitioner therefore challenged both the original assessment proceedings and the appellate order.
In support of the challenge, the petitioner’s counsel relied upon the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s orders dated 18.12.2023 in Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner & Ors. and dated 25.02.2026 in W.P.No.5325 of 2026 & batch, D.Subhasini Devi v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act and, instead of pursuing that remedy, had approached the High Court.
The High Court examined the material on record and noted that the death of the petitioner’s father, the sole proprietor, was not in dispute. The Death Certificate produced as Ex.P2 established the date of death. The Court further noted that the proceedings dated 20.04.2023 recorded that the petitioner, as son/legal representative of the deceased proprietor, had been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the assessment proceedings were finalised.
The Court also took note of the fact that appeals had been preferred against the assessment proceedings covering the period from 2017-18 to 2022-23 and that those appeals had been rejected. From the appellate order, it appeared that although an opportunity of personal hearing had been afforded, there was no representation.
Importantly, the Court observed that the grounds of appeal specifically raised the fact that the proprietor of the Saw Mill had died. It was undisputed that the proprietor had died on 08.08.2020, before the assessment order under challenge had been passed.
In these circumstances, the Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that the impugned orders were not valid in law. The Court held that the Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated the fact of the proprietor’s death and disposed of the appeals with a direction to the first respondent to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Court further took into account that the appeals had been filed by the legal representative of the deceased proprietor. It therefore considered it appropriate to set aside the Common Order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority and remand the matter for passing fresh orders in terms of Section 93(1)(b), after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Thus, the High Court did not finally determine the underlying tax liability on merits. Instead, it granted procedural relief by setting aside the appellate order and directing fresh consideration in accordance with Section 93(1)(b), with an opportunity of hearing to the legal representative.
Cases Discussed
- Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner & Ors., W.P.No.31675 of 2023, order dated 18.12.2023 — relied upon by the petitioner in support of the contention that proceedings in similar circumstances could be challenged before the High Court.
- D.Subhasini Devi v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors., W.P.No.5325 of 2026 & batch, order dated 25.02.2026 — relied upon by the petitioner as another decision concerning similar circumstances.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
One Mr.B.Hanumantha Reddy was sole proprietor of M/s.Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill on the rolls of 1st respondent. He passed away on 08.08.2020 with critical illness at NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. His son / legal representative of the deceased B.Hanumantha Reddy, filed the present writ petition assailing the Assessment Proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.04.2023.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia submitted that impugned Proceedings dated 20.04.2023 against a dead / non-existing person is not valid in the eye of Law. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Authority i.e., 2nd respondent for the Tax periods 2017-18 to 2022-23 and by a Common Order dated 16.04.2026, the same were dismissed. He further contended that even the original assessment order for the said tax period against the dead person is nonest in the eye of law, the appellate order is also unsustainable and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that writ petitions filed in similar circumstances were entertained and disposed of by setting aside the orders of assessment. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the orders dated 18.12.2023 in W.P.No.31675 of 2023 (Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner & Ors.) and dated 25.02.2026 in W.P.No.5325 of 2026 & batch (D.Subhasini Devi v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.)
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the impugned proceedings. He submits that the petitioner instead of filing the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
6. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that father of the writ petitioner is, sole proprietor of M/s.Sri Rams Jyothi Saw Mill is not in dispute. Ex.P2 i.e., Death Certificate issued by the competent authority discerns the date of death of the petitioner’s father. However, as seen from the Proceedings dated 20.04.2023, it is discernible that the petitioner herein i.e., son / legal representative of deceased Proprietor of Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill was afforded an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the Assessment Proceedings were finalized. It is also not in dispute that against the Assessment Proceedings covering the period from 2017-18 to 2022-23, appeals were preferred and the same were rejected. From a reading of the appellate order, it would appear that even though opportunity of personal hearing was afforded, there is no representation. Be that as it may.
7. As seen from the grounds of appeal, it was specifically urged to the effect that the proprietor of the Saw Mill in question died. It is not in dispute that even before passing of the Assessment Order under appeal, the Proprietor of M/s. Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill, died on 08.08.2020. In such circumstances, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, impugned orders are not valid in the eye of Law. The learned Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated the said aspect and disposed of the appeals with a direction to the 1st respondent to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 93 (1) (b) of the C.G.S.T.ActHowever, keeping in view of the fact that the appeals are preferred by a legal representative of the deceased Proprietor of Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the common order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority and the matter is remanded back for passing orders afresh in terms of Section 93 (1) (b) of the G.S.T.Act, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
