GST Order Set Aside as Passed Against Deceased Person: Madras HC

T. Madhanprabhu Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

The writ petition challenged the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the respondent. The petitioner submitted that the original proprietor of the firm died on 25.01.2023. Thereafter, an application was filed for cancellation of the GST registration, which was cancelled by order dated 16.04.2024 with retrospective effect from 31.08.2023. The petitioner stated that the GST portal was not accessed thereafter. However, a show cause notice dated 03.11.2023 and the subsequent impugned order dated 06.09.2024 were issued in the name of the deceased proprietor. It was contended that the impugned order, having been passed against a dead person, was non-est in law and liable to be set aside. The petitioner, being one of the legal heirs, also expressed willingness to submit a reply to the show cause notice on behalf of all the legal heirs.

The respondent fairly admitted that the notice had been issued in the name of the petitioner’s deceased husband. The High Court observed that the petitioner’s husband had died on 25.01.2023 and that both the show cause notice and the impugned order were issued thereafter. The Court held that an order passed against a dead person is normally non-est in law. It further noted that the GST registration had already been cancelled after the proprietor’s demise and, therefore, the impugned order passed against the deceased could not be enforced.

Taking note of the undertaking given by the petitioner’s wife to file a reply on behalf of all the legal heirs, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner, as a legal heir, to file a reply along with supporting documents to the show cause notice dated 03.11.2023 within two weeks from receipt of the order. The respondent was directed to consider the reply, issue a clear 14-day notice fixing the date of personal hearing, and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the respondent.

2. Ms. P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the original proprietor of the petitioner firm was passed away on 25.01.2023. Thereafter, an application was filed for cancellation of GST Registration and the same was cancelled vide order dated 16.04.2024 with retrospective effect on 31.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has not visited the portal. Under these circumstance, the show cause notice was issued and subsequently, the impugned order has also been passed against one T.Madhanprabhu, who is a dead person. Hence, he would contend that the said impugned order is non-est in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner/ P.Shanmugapriya, who is one of the legal heir of the deceased, is willing to file reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent on 03.11.2023. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders

5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would fairly admit that the notice was issued against the petitioner’s husband, who is a dead person. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner’s husband was died on 25.01.2023. Thereafter, the show cause notice dated 03.11.2023 was issued and the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 was passed by the respondent against the petitioner’s husband, who is a dead person.

8. Normally, an order, which was passed against a dead person, is non-est in law. In this case, subsequent to the demise of petitioner’s husband, the GST Registration was cancelled. Under these circumstances, the respondent has passed the impugned order, against a dead person and hence, the same cannot be enforced.

9. Further, the petitioner, who is wife of the deceased, has undertake to file a reply to the show cause notice on behalf of all the legal heirs. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

i. The impugned order dated 06.09.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

ii. The petitioner, in her capacity as a legal heir of the deceased, shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, for the show cause notice dated 03.11.2023, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.