SSS Agro Foods Vs Assistant Commissioner ST (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition filed by SSS Agro Foods and set aside the assessment proceedings dated 31.12.2024 and the rejection endorsement dated 28.03.2026. The Court held that the assessment order passed against the deceased proprietor had no legal efficacy and that the proceedings were also vitiated by failure to comply with Section 75(4) of the GST Act concerning opportunity of personal hearing.
The petitioner’s husband, who was the proprietor of M/s. S.S.S. Agro Foods, died on 03.05.2024, prior to the assessment order dated 31.12.2024. According to the petitioner, the husband had been looking after the financial affairs of the business and the assessment proceedings were therefore not within her knowledge. A statutory appeal against the assessment order was subsequently rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under the A.P. GST Act.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the appellate authority had failed to consider the circumstances arising from the proprietor’s death. It was further submitted that the assessment proceedings had been completed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Reliance was placed on the Coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 6029 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025.
The Revenue defended the appellate rejection on the ground of delay and contended that the writ petition was not sustainable without availing the statutory remedies.
The Court examined the death certificate dated 01.06.2024, which indicated that Balusu Surya Prathap Chowdary, purportedly the proprietor of the writ petitioner, had died on 03.05.2024. The Court observed that the death had occurred much before the assessment order dated 31.12.2024. It held that an order passed against a dead person does not have any legal efficacy.
The Court further found that the impugned proceedings had not adverted to the relevant statutory provision, particularly Section 75(4), which contemplates an opportunity of personal hearing before an assessment order is passed.
The Court relied upon the Coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 6029 of 2025, identified in TaxGuru as Baratam Satish v. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. In that decision, the Court had considered Section 93 of the GST Act and held that proceedings could not be sustained against a deceased person, while dues could be recovered through the statutory mechanism involving the appropriate representative or estate.
Following that reasoning, the High Court held that the proceedings dated 31.12.2024 were liable to be set aside. Since the original order itself was non est in law, the rejection endorsement dated 28.03.2026 emanating from that assessment proceeding was also declared invalid.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed. However, the first respondent was granted liberty to issue appropriate notice to Smt. Balusu Bhuvaneswari Devi and proceed with the assessment after giving her due opportunity of hearing. The Court also directed that the period from the date of passing of the impugned order until receipt of the High Court’s order would be excluded for limitation purposes. There was no order as to costs.
Cases Discussed
- Baratam Satish v. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No. 6029 of 2025, dated 24.12.2025 — the Coordinate Bench decision relied upon for the proposition that assessment proceedings cannot be sustained against a deceased person and that fresh assessment must involve the legal representative.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Mr.Anurag Sampath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, who appeared through online and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.12.2024 passed against proprietary concern M/s. S.S.S. Agro Foods, the present writ petition is filed.
3. As per the averments made in the affidavit, the husband of the deponent is proprietor of M/s. S.S.S. Agro Foods and he expired on 03.05.2024. Respondent authorities passed impugned adjudication order on 31.01.2024 and since the husband of the petitioner was proprietor looking after the financial activities of the business, passing of assessment order was not within the knowledge of the deponent. Be that as it may.
4. Against the assessment order, statutory appeal was filed, but the same was rejected vide Endorsement dated 28.03.2026 on the premise that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute i.e., A.P. GST Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that though the factum of death of the proprietor, who was the person looking after the affairs of the business, that deponent is not aware of the proceedings under GST Act, much less, impugned assessment order was urged, the appellate authority has merely rejected the appeal without considering the relevant aspects. That apart, he submits that the impugned proceedings have been passed without affording opportunity, much less, by giving a notice of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Placing reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6029 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025, learned counsel while stating that the deponent of the affidavit i.e., wife of the proprietor of petitioner concern has not inherited any interest out of the proprietary concern, seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
6. Per contra, Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned order. He submits that as the appeal was filed with a delay, the same was rightly rejected by the appellate authority, therefore, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. Further, the same without availing statutory remedies is not sustainable.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
8. Death certificate dated 01.06.2024 (Ex.P.2) indicates that Balusu Surya Prathap Chowdary purportedly the proprietor of the writ petitioner died on 03.05.2024, i.e., much prior to passing of the assessment order dated 31.12.2024. It is settled position that an order passed against dead person does not have any legal efficacy. Further, as seen from the impugned proceedings, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without adverting to the relevant statutory provision, more particularly, Section 75(4) of GST Act, which contemplates opportunity of personal hearing before passing assessment orders.
9. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of decision in W.P.No.6029 of 2025, which is applicable to the present facts:-
“6. It is settled law that the assessments and other proceedings can only be initiated against the persons who are living and such proceedings against death person would not be valid. However, the fact remains that, under Section 93 of the GST Act, the dues of the death person can be recovered either from the business he had set up or from his estate. In such circumstances, in the absences of any provision, this Court would have to be hold that the only practicable way of settling the affairs of the death person would be to direct the assessment being carried out by involving either the representative or person carrying on the business of a death person or which such business is not being carried on, by involving the legal representative who be holding the estate of the deceased person.
7. In the said circumstances, since the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased person, being his son, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, dated 25.01.2024, with a direction to carry out a fresh assessment after involving the petitioner herein, by issuing a notice to the petitioner. Needless to say, any recovery that may be initiated, after an Order of assessment, shall be only against the estate of a deceased person and against the petitioner to the extent of the estate of his deceased father, which is available to the petitioner.”
10. In the light of above said decision and the conclusions arrived at supra, the proceedings dated 31.12.2024 are set aside. Rejection Endorsement dated 28.03.2026 emanating from the assessment proceedings is also not sustainable since the original order itself is non est in Law. Therefore, the same is declared invalid.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and proceed with the assessment proceedings after giving due opportunity of hearing to the deponent of the affidavit herein Smt. Balusu Bhuvaneswari Devi.
12. Needless to say that the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
13. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
