S. Anand Sathya Vs Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise (Madras High Court)
In the case of S. Anand Sathya vs. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise at the Madras High Court, the petitioner contested a tax demand order issued after their father’s death. The father, who was the business owner, passed away on February 8, 2023, and the subsequent tax notices and demand orders were issued after his death. The petitioner, who did not inherit the business, argued that the tax demand was unjustified.
The court found that the tax orders, issued after the father’s death, were improper. It ruled that the case should be reviewed afresh, noting that under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the liability of legal representatives, the petitioner could be held accountable only if they took over the business. The court directed the tax authorities to issue a proper notice and provide the petitioner with an opportunity to respond. It emphasized that the petitioner should be allowed to defend themselves against the tax demand, and the authorities were instructed to resolve the matter expeditiously.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 22.03.2024 and the consequential demand order, dated 26.04.2024 and 01.05.2024.
