Summary: Issuing Goods and Services Tax (GST) notices to a deceased individual is legally invalid. Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 outlines the procedure for addressing tax liabilities upon a taxpayer’s death, placing responsibility on legal representatives. If the business continues, the legal heir or successor is liable for all dues. If the business is discontinued, the legal representative’s liability is limited to the deceased’s estate. Numerous court judgments, including recent rulings from various High Courts, have consistently held that any notice or proceeding initiated in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio, citing violations of natural justice. Authorities must identify and issue notices directly to the legal representatives, clearly stating their capacity and the basis of their liability under Section 93. Proper procedure, including ascertaining the taxpayer’s death and serving notice on legal heirs, is mandatory for valid tax recovery. Legal heirs should inform the authorities of the death to ensure correct procedure is followed.
Introduction
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, while streamlining indirect taxation in India, also brought with it a new set of compliance requirements and legal obligations for taxpayers. A unique and legally complex issue has emerged: Can tax authorities issue a notice under the GST law to a deceased person? This question brings Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) into focus, which deals with the liability of legal representatives and successors of a deceased taxable person.
Legal Framework: Section 93 of the CGST Act
Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides the statutory basis for determining tax liability when a registered person dies. It reads as follows:
“Where a person liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act dies, then—
(a) if a business is carried on after his death by the legal representative or any other person, such representative or other person shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty due from such person;
(b) if the business is discontinued, the legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty due from such person.”
Analysis of Section 93
The section clearly contemplates two scenarios:
Business Continued: If the business is carried on post the death of the taxpayer, the legal heir or other person continuing the business assumes the tax liability. This includes pending dues, future obligations, and compliance matters.
Business Discontinued: Where the business is not continued, the legal representative’s liability is limited to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Thus, personal assets of the legal heir cannot be attached beyond the estate of the deceased taxpayer.
Invalidity of Notice to a Deceased Person
Despite this legal clarity, there have been multiple instances where tax notices under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST Act (pertaining to tax not paid or short paid) have been issued in the name of a deceased individual. Such actions raise questions of legality, especially in light of principles of natural justice and procedural propriety.
Courts have repeatedly & consistently held that notices & legal proceedings initiated against a dead person are null and void from inception. In the context of tax adjudication, several High Courts have reiterated that a show cause notice (SCN) or demand order issued in the name of a deceased person is void.
It is pertinent to refer to Delhi High Court judgment in Smt. Usha Gupta, Wife Of Lt. Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta (Proprietor S.K.Gupta & Co) vs Commissioner Of CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate & Anr decided on 23 September, 2024 (W.P.(C) 11634/2024 & CM APPL. 48366/2024)wherein answering the issue in hand, the Court observed thus:
“3. Admittedly, the impugned SCN has been issued to a person who was a deceased taxpayer.
…..
7. Undeniably, in a case where the person is liable to pay tax, interest and/or penalty, has expired and the business is carried on by the taxpayer’s legal representative or any other person after his demise, the said legal representative or such other person is liable to pay the due, interest or penalty as payable by the deceased taxpayer. However, the show cause notice for recovery of any such amount is required to be issued to the legal representative or such other person, who is carrying on the business of the deceased taxpayer.
8. In the present case, impugned SCN has not been issued to the legal representative of the deceased taxpayer but to the deceased taxpayer.
9. In Unnikrishnan R & Ors v. Union of India & Ors : 2024 (7) TMI 606 the Madras High Court has held as under:-
“10. The order that has been passed against the dead person is non-est in law. If the petitioner is carrying on the business of the deceased person, then, the remedy is available to the Department to proceed against the petitioner under Section 93 of the TNGST Act, 2017. It appears to be that the petitioner is not carrying on the business of the deceased person.”
10. In view of the above, the impugned SCN is set aside. It is clarified that, this order will not preclude the respondents from issuing a notice to the legal representative or any other person, if it is found that the business of the deceased taxpayer is being carried on by the deceased taxpayer’s legal representative or such other person.”
It would be appropriate to refer to the recent judgment dated 21-04-2025 of the Allahabad High Court in the case of SATENDRA KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF U.P., AND 2 OTHERS in Writ Tax No.1728 of 2025 wherein it has been categorically held that proceedings initiated against a person who is deceased are void. The Court held that Tax authorities must comply with Section 93 by proceeding against the legal heirs, respecting principles of natural justice and cannot legally make a shortcut by continuing proceedings against the deceased.
The Court held that the uploading of the Show Cause Notice and order on the GST portal was insufficient because the deceased could not have accessed the portal and the legal heirs were oblivious of the proceedings as they were not made parties to the proceedings. The Court deprecated the practice of continuance of proceedings without substituting legal heirs as the same tantamount to Gross Violation of established principles of Natural Justice & principles of ‘audi alteram partem’.
The Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amit Kumar Sethia vs. State of U.P. and another, Writ Tax No.917 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025 is also noteworthy, wherein it was held that Determination of liability against a dead person is void ab initio . The Court also held that a valid determination requires prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the legal heirs.
The Court in the said case summed up thus:
“8. Once the provision deals with the liability of a legal representative on account of death of the proprietor of the firm, it is sine qua non that the legal representative is issued a show cause notice and after seeking response from the legal representative, the determination should take place.
9. In view thereof, the determination made in the present case wherein the show cause notice was issued and the determination was made against the dead person without issuing notice to the legal representative, cannot be sustained.”
It would be apropos to refer to the case of Madras High Court in Rekha S. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madras High Court (W.P.No.35411 of 2023 Decided on 19-12-2023). The High Court set aside the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner against the dead person being
non-est in law.
It would be apposite to refer to Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Benoy Abraham v. State Tax Officer, Kerala High Court in WP(C) NO. 10362 OF 2024 decided on 9 July, 2024. The Court was dealing with a similar situation on the subject captioned above and observed thus:
“4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, I am of the view that since Ext.P3 seems to be issued against a deceased person, the said order is a nullity. It may be true that the provisions of Section 93 of the CGST/SGST Acts permit the continuance of proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased person, in a case where the business has been discontinued. However, the said provision does not authorize the continuance and culmination of proceedings against a deceased person. Therefore, Ext.P3 order is a nullity as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.”
In a recent case the Madras High Court in Lakshmi Periyasamy v. State Tax Officer, Madras High Court decided on 26.11.2024 W.P. No.34252 of 2024 & W.M.P. Nos.37093 and 37098 of 2024, dealing with the controversy in hand observed thus:
“2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the death certificate that Mr.Perumal Pitchaimuthu passed away on 17.11.2020. It was submitted that the factum of demise of Mr.S.Periyasamy was brought to the notice of the Respondent authority and application for cancellation of registration certificate was also made. However, the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 is made in the name of a dead person viz., Mr.S.Periyasamy.
3. It is trite law that assessment or adjudication orders made in the name of dead person is non-est and a nullity. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of R.Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India reported in2024 (21) CENTAX 47 (Mad.),wherein, while considering an identical issue, it was held as under….. “
It is relevant to refer to Vimal Raj v. State Tax Officer, Kerala High Court decided on 22ND Day of January 2020 in WP(C).No.927 of 2020, wherein the Court decided the controversy thus:
“5. After hearing both sides, it appears that the respondent does not raise any serious dispute as to the factual assertion made by the petitioner that the assessee concerned (who appears to be the paternal grandfather of the petitioner herein) is said to be one of the legal hairs of the deceased assessee as the petitioner’s father who is the son of the assessee has died as early as on 27.03.2018 as evident WP(C).No.927 OF 2020(M) 4 from Ext.P3 death certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, which is much before the rendering of the impugned Ext.P3 series of the assessment orders issued in March 2019. Since, that appears to be the undisputed position, it is only to be held that Ext.P3 series of assessment orders rendered as late as in March 2019 has been passed as against an assessee who is already dead by then and therefore, the impugned assessment orders is a nullity in the eye of law.”
In the case of Kakali Saha v. State of West Bengal, Calcutta High Court in 2023 quashed the GST notice issued on Dead Person. The Court observed thus:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and submission of the parties, the aforesaid impugned order is quashed on the ground that the same has been issued in the name of a dead person.”
Lastly reference is necessary for the Madras High Court judgment in Unnikrishnan R. v. Union of India, decided on 12.06.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.12464 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11068, 11073 & 11079 of 2024 wherein the Court reiterated that notice/ proceedings against a dead person are ab initio void.
All the cases,referred to above, collectively affirm that under the CGST Act, particularly Section 93, tax authorities must direct proceedings towards legal heirs or representatives of a deceased person, rather than issuing notices in the name of the deceased. Failure to adhere to this legal requirement renders such notices and subsequent proceedings invalid. These case laws reinforce the principle that tax proceedings against a deceased person must mandatorily be directed against the legal representatives and in accordance with Section 93.
Proper Procedure for Recovery
When a taxpayer dies, the proper legal course for the tax department is:
Ascertain Death: Check whether the taxpayer has passed away before initiating any notice or proceeding.
Identify Legal Representatives: Determine the legal heirs or representatives who are either continuing the business or administering the estate.
Serve Notice on Legal Heirs: Issue notices under relevant GST provisions (Sections 73/74) to the legal representatives, explicitly stating their capacity and liability under Section 93.
Limit Recovery: Ensure recovery efforts are confined to the extent of the deceased’s estate in cases where the business has been discontinued.
Practical Challenges and Recommendations
Lack of Integration with Civil Death Records: GST systems are yet to be integrated with civil registration databases. As a result, tax authorities may not always be aware of a taxpayer’s death.
Need for Proactive Intimation by Legal Heirs: Legal heirs should promptly inform the jurisdictional officer and update the GST portal regarding the death of the registered person.
Guidelines from CBIC: The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) should issue standardized guidelines to ensure that field officers comply with legal requirements when dealing with deceased taxpayers.
Conclusion
Issuing a GST notice in the name of a deceased person is procedurally invalid and legally untenable. Section 93 of the CGST Act offers a comprehensive mechanism to hold legal heirs liable, either for continuing the business or from the estate of the deceased. Tax authorities must strictly adhere to this provision, and legal representatives must remain vigilant to safeguard against unlawful recovery actions. Greater legal awareness and administrative sensitivity are essential to avoid injustice in such delicate situations.
Author Bio
