Dead Man Gets Tax Bill: India’s GST System Fails

DEAD MAN GETS TAX BILL – A shocking true story of how India’s tax department is chasing people who died years ago

One cold morning in February 2025, Arjun Sharma got a letter that shocked him. It was a tax bill for Rs. 29.54 lakh from the GST Department. The bill was addressed to his father, Rajesh Sharma. But there was one big problem—his father had been dead for almost four years.

Rajesh Sharma had died on May 3, 2021, at his home in Delhi. His small business, Phoenix Enterprises, had already closed down in 2019 because he was losing money. Like many small business owners in India, he couldn’t keep up with the costs and had to shut down. The family had grieved, moved on with their lives, and thought everything was settled. But the tax department had other plans.

What happened next sounds like something from a bad comedy movie, except its real and it’s happening to families all over India. Tax officers, armed with official papers and computer systems, started chasing a dead man for money as if death was just a minor inconvenience.

When Arjun first heard that the tax department was investigating his father’s old business, he did what any sensible person would do. On March 15, 2024, he wrote a letter to the officials. He politely explained that his father had died and that the business had been closed for years. He attached all the necessary papers—death certificate, business closure documents, everything they could possibly need. He thought this would be the end of it. After all, how can you collect taxes from a dead person?

But Arjun didn’t know how stubborn the tax system can be. Like a dog with a bone, the department refused to let go. They kept sending notices to the government website where taxpayers check their accounts. These notices piled up like digital grave markers for dead taxpayers. On August 9, 2024, they sent an official notice to “Late Rajesh Sharma,” as if “Late” was just a fancy title instead of meaning “dead.”

The whole thing reached its peak of absurdity on February 1, 2025, when a tax officer signed a 39-page order demanding money from the deceased businessman. The order was full of official language and legal terms, carefully building a case against a man who couldn’t read it, couldn’t respond to it, and didn’t even know it existed because he was six feet underground.

But this wasn’t just happening to Rajesh Sharma’s family. All across India, the same weird story was playing out in courts from Delhi to Chennai, from Allahabad to Kerala. Judges were seeing case after case of tax officials chasing dead people with the determination of ghost hunters from old horror movies.

In Delhi, a judge looked at one such case and said, with obvious disbelief, “The notice has been sent to a person who is dead. The notice should be sent to the family members who are alive.” You could almost picture the judge shaking his head in amazement as he wrote this.

In Allahabad, two judges were even more direct. They said, “You cannot start legal action against someone who is dead. Tax officials cannot take shortcuts by continuing cases against dead people.” They were clearly fed up with this nonsense.

Down south in Chennai, another judge faced a similar case involving a dead businessman’s son. The judge’s response was simple and clear: “Since this order has been passed against a dead person, the order is cancelled and thrown out.” It was like the judge was stating the obvious that somehow the tax department had missed.

In Kerala, yet another judge dealt with the same problem. His words were final: “The order seems to be against a dead person, so the order is worthless.” Across India’s courts, judges were all saying the same thing—you can’t tax dead people, and anyone who thinks otherwise has seriously misunderstood both law and basic common sense.

But the saddest part of this whole mess is what it means for the families. Think about Arjun Sharma, still dealing with the pain of losing his father, suddenly thrown into a legal nightmare where he has to prove that dead people don’t pay taxes. Imagine widows across the country, sons and daughters in different cities—all fighting a system that seems unable to tell the difference between the living and the dead.

The government’s computer system, which was supposed to make things easier, had become like a haunted house where notices to dead people gathered electronic dust. The system, designed to help taxpayers, had created a new category of impossible cases—trying to collect money from people who no longer exist.

Meanwhile, in tax offices across India, officers kept processing these cases like robots. They wrote notices, signed orders, and demanded money—all from people who existed only in computer files, having left the real world years earlier. It was like a bad dream where common sense had been replaced by mindless paperwork.

The really frustrating part is that the tax law already has rules for exactly this situation. Section 93 of the GST Act clearly says what to do when a taxpayer dies: go after the family members who are alive and handling the person’s affairs, not the dead person themselves. It’s like the lawmakers saw this problem coming and wrote clear instructions, only to watch in amazement as tax officials completely ignored them.

The tax department’s bosses had even written detailed guidelines in 2019, explaining step by step how to handle cases involving dead business owners. These guidelines were like an instruction manual that was comprehensive, detailed, and completely ignored by the very people it was meant to help.

As these legal battles piled up, something interesting happened. Tax departments in other countries looked at India’s “dead taxpayer” problem with confusion and amazement. In places like the UK, Canada, and Australia, their computer systems automatically detect when a taxpayer has died and redirect the case to the right people. The idea of chasing dead taxpayers isn’t just legally wrong—their technology prevents it from happening. India’s approach seemed to belong to a different century.

The judges’ responses got sharper and angrier with each case. They started using the strongest possible language to condemn these practices. Terms like “completely invalid,” “worthless in law,” and “serious violation of basic fairness” filled their judgments. Some courts noted the “deliberate ignoring” of proper procedures. Others spoke of “system-wide failures” and “administrative carelessness.” The message from India’s judges was becoming crystal clear: this madness had to stop.

Yet the cases kept coming. In courtroom after courtroom, lawyers found themselves in the bizarre position of arguing that their clients couldn’t be taxed because they were dead—an argument that should never be necessary in any reasonable legal system. Judges, trained to handle complex legal questions, found themselves ruling on the simple biological fact that death ends a person’s legal existence.

The waste was enormous. Government lawyers spent hours defending cases that made no sense. Court time was eaten up with cases that should never have been filed. Administrative resources that could have been used to catch real tax cheats were wasted chasing ghosts. Meanwhile, actual tax evasion by living, breathing taxpayers continued while officials hunted phantoms.

For families caught in this administrative nightmare, the experience was both heart breaking and ridiculous. They had already suffered the loss of their loved ones; only to find themselves defending dead people against accusations they could no longer answer. It was grief made worse by legal harassment, mourning interrupted by bureaucratic absurdity.

The story of Rajesh Sharma and countless others like him shows what happens when bureaucracy loses touch with basic human reality. It’s the story of systems that become so mechanical they forget they’re dealing with people, not just numbers in a computer.

As this story continues in courts across India, one thing is clear: the battle between legal common sense and bureaucratic stubbornness is reaching its end. Judges have spoken with one voice, the law is clear, and public opinion is building around a simple truth—you cannot and should not tax the dead.

The only question now is whether the GST department will finally listen to the judges telling them to let dead people rest in peace, or whether this bizarre tale of bureaucratic ghost-hunting will continue to haunt Indian tax administration. For Arjun Sharma and families like his across India, the answer will determine whether their loved ones can finally have the peace that death should have brought them.

In the end, this is a story about more than just tax law—it’s about the limits of government power, the importance of treating people with dignity, and the simple truth that some things in life, including the end of life itself, must be respected even by the most determined bureaucracy. The dead have earned their rest, and it’s time for India’s tax department to finally let them have it.

The message is simple and clear: Stop chasing ghosts. Start focusing on the living. And remember that even the most powerful government department cannot collect taxes from the great beyond.

*****

About the Author: Advocate Rabinarayan Sahu is the Proprietor of R N Legal, specializing in GST, indirect tax litigation, and regulatory compliance. He has extensive experience in appellate proceedings before various tax tribunals, with particular expertise in indirect tax proceedings, administrative and constitutional law matters. R N Legal is a full-service law firm providing comprehensive legal solutions in taxation, and regulatory matters. The firm represents clients across various industries in complex tax litigation and advisory matters. Beyond professional commitments, Advocate Sahu is actively involved in legal awareness programs, seminars, and community initiatives, fostering a better understanding of the law among the citizens.