Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in Gottipati Siva Naga Deepthi v. Assistant Commissioner, dated 14 October 2026, examines the validity of a GST assessment order passed against a deceased sole proprietor and the continuing liability of legal representatives under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The proprietor died on 29 September 2023, whereas the assessment order was passed on 6 April 2024. The Court held that an order passed against a deceased person has no legal efficacy and accordingly set aside the assessment order and consequential proceedings. However, the Court permitted the tax authorities to initiate fresh proceedings against the appropriate legal representative after providing an opportunity of hearing. It also directed exclusion of the specified intervening period for limitation purposes. The ruling highlights the distinction between the invalidity of proceedings conducted against a deceased taxpayer and the survival of statutory tax liabilities. Under Section 93, where the business is continued after death, liability may attach to the person continuing it. Where the business is discontinued, the legal representative’s liability is restricted to the deceased’s estate to the extent that the estate can meet the charge. The decision underscores the importance of timely cancellation of GST registration, identification of the proper person for service of notices, preservation of evidence concerning business closure and inherited assets, and careful monitoring of statutory appeal and assessment timelines. Setting aside an invalid assessment does not automatically extinguish the underlying tax liability or prevent lawful fresh proceedings.
Introduction
A sole Proprietorship has no identity separate from its owner. When the proprietor passes away, the business is closed informally, the family moves on, and the GST registration might remain active on the portal. Notices continue to be uploaded, nobody reads them, and in due course an order is passed.
The discussion applies to all proprietary concerns registered under GST.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with exactly this situation on 14.10.2026 in Gottipati Siva Naga Deepthi v. Assistant Commissioner. This article explains the ruling, how Section 93 of the CGST Act fits in, and what practitioners should do when a notice or order surfaces after the death of a client.
In the said case, the proprietor of the concern died on 29.09.2023 and an assessment order was passed against the proprietary concern on 06.04.2024.
The Court relied on the settled position that an order passed against a dead person has no legal efficacy. Since the proprietor had died before the order was passed, the order was declared invalid and set aside. All consequential proceedings stood revoked.
The Court did not close the matter there. It allowed the department to issue a fresh notice to the legal representative and proceed with assessment after giving a proper opportunity of hearing. The period from the date of the impugned order until receipt of the High Court’s order was excluded for limitation. Any recovery in that case was confined to the estate of the deceased available to him.
Where Section 93 Comes In
Section 93(1) of the CGST Act makes the legal representative liable for the tax, interest or penalty of a deceased person. The extent of liability depends on what happened to the business:
- If the business is continued after death by the legal representative or any other person, that person is liable for the dues.
- If the business is discontinued, the legal representative is liable only out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent the estate can meet the charge.
The Court’s reasoning is practical. Section 93 allows recovery from the estate or the business, so the department cannot simply write off the dues. But the proceedings must be directed at a living person: the person continuing the business or, if it is closed, the legal representative holding the estate.
Common Myths
A) The legal heir becomes personally liable for all the dues. Not so. Where the business has been discontinued, liability is limited to the estate that the heir has actually received. In the cases before the Court, any recovery was restricted to that extent.
B) The order is void, so the department can do nothing further. The department can start afresh with notice to the right person, and limitation is excluded for the intervening period. The ruling gives the family a fair hearing. It does not give them a waiver.
C) An appeal is no longer necessary in such cases. The Court set the order aside in writ jurisdiction even though an appeal was available. In the author’s opinion, this reflects the fact that the order was passed against a person who no longer existed. It should not be read as a general license to bypass the appeal route. Where a representative is already aware of the order, the appeal timelines under Section 107 should still be watched closely.
Practical Issues Faced by Practitioners
Registration of the deceased proprietor
Registration of the deceased proprietor. In many cases, the registration is neither cancelled nor surrendered after death, and returns stop being filed. This invites a best-judgment or summary order. Where the business has closed, an application for cancellation should be made promptly by the legal heir or the person authorised.
Who is the right person to be served?
Who is the right person to be served? The answer depends on whether the business continued. A heir who has quietly carried on the business may well be treated as liable under Section 93(1)(a). A heir who has done nothing with the business is in a very different position. Documents showing closure, such as the death certificate, closure date and proof of no inheritance, should be gathered early.
Limitation for the department
Limitation for the department. The exclusion of the intervening period in this ruling means the department may get fresh time. Heirs should treat the fresh notice seriously and not assume the matter has ended.
Conclusion
The ruling reinforces a simple point: tax proceedings must be directed at a person who exists in law. At the same time, the Court has preserved the department’s right to recover dues from the estate through a fair process. For practitioners, the lesson is to look at the date of death before looking at the merits of any order.
*****
Disclaimer: The information contained in this document is intended solely for dissemination of information and doesn’t aim at soliciting work in any manner. Though meticulous care has been taken but the author assumes no liability in respect of any loss/damage incurred while acting on the basis of information provided. The above framework has been developed by the author after researching since long time and a proprietary intellectual property of the author. The author can be reached at [email protected] and can be called at +91-7011503210.
