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.
