When GST Outlives Taxpayer: Liability of Legal Representative under Section 93

Summary: Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017 addresses liability for tax, interest or penalty where a taxable person dies. Where the business is continued after death, Section 93(1)(a) applies to the legal representative or other person continuing the business; where the business is discontinued, Section 93(1)(b) limits the legal representative’s liability to payment out of the deceased’s estate, to the extent that the estate is capable of meeting the charge. The supplied material examines this statutory framework alongside recent GST jurisprudence concerning proceedings against deceased taxpayers, legal heirs and persons allegedly continuing the deceased’s business. It refers to Section 93 of the CGST Act and the procedural safeguards under Section 75. The material discusses Smt. Usha Gupta, Wife of Lt. Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta (Proprietor of M/s S.K. Gupta & Co.) v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate, concerning a show cause notice issued to a deceased taxpayer; Rishi Shangari v. Union of India, concerning the absence of material establishing continuation of the deceased’s business; BKR Services Private Limited and Santosh Kumar Rudraswamy Kabbinakanthimatha v. State of Karnataka, concerning recovery through Form GST DRC-13 against a distinct legal entity; and Chotu Devi, Ajmer v. Union of India, concerning Section 93 read with Sections 75(4) and 75(6). The material further refers to Section 16(5), Section 148 and Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax dated 08.10.2024 in discussing the statutory context raised in the supplied material. The overall discussion states that death does not automatically extinguish tax liability, but proceedings and recovery against legal representatives remain subject to the statutory distinction between continuation and discontinuation of business and the procedural safeguards governing notice, hearing and reasoned orders.

Introduction: The death of a taxable person does not, by itself, extinguish tax, interest or penalty liability under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). However, the continuation of proceedings after the death of a taxable person is not without statutory limitations. Section 93 of the CGST Act specifically provides for the liability of legal representatives and other persons in cases where the taxable person dies, the business is discontinued, or the business is continued by another person.

The provision is therefore significant in determining two distinct questions:

• first, whether the tax liability of the deceased survives his death; and
• second, the manner and extent to which such liability can be enforced against the legal representative.

93. Special provisions regarding liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in certain cases.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), where a person, liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act, dies, then––

(a) if a business carried on by the person is continued after his death by his legal representative or any other person, such legal representative or other person, shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act; and

(b) if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after his death, his 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 under this Act,

whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined before his death but has remained unpaid or is determined after his death.

[Emphasis Supplied]

Thus, Section 93(1) draws an important distinction. Where the business of the deceased is continued by the legal representative or another person, Section 93(1)(a) fastens liability upon such person. On the other hand, where the business is discontinued, Section 93(1)(b) restricts the liability of the legal representative to payment out of the estate of the deceased and only to the extent to which such estate is capable of meeting the charge.

The provision also makes it clear that the liability does not necessarily cease merely because the determination of tax, interest or penalty takes place after the death of the taxable person.

Survival of liability does not mean continuation of proceedings against a dead person

A distinction, however, has to be maintained between the survival of tax liability and the validity of proceedings undertaken to determine or recover such liability.

A recent order of the Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal (“GSTAT”) in Vijayan Sahadevan (Deceased) v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram, 2026 (8) TMI 1362 – GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram, brings this distinction into sharp focus.

In that case, the proprietor had died and the GST registration had been cancelled. No further business was carried on in the name of the deceased and there was cessation of return filing. The Tribunal considered whether proceedings could nevertheless be continued against the legal heir.

The Tribunal held that while recovery of tax liability after the death of a proprietor is permissible, where the business has been discontinued, Section 93(1)(b) becomes applicable and recovery against the legal representative is confined to the estate of the deceased and to the extent that such estate is capable of meeting the liability.

Additionally, the Tribunal found procedural lapses on the part of the Department. No notice had been issued to the legal heir, no inquiry had been undertaken regarding the existence or extent of the inherited estate, and no steps contemplated under Section 93 had been taken even after the death of the proprietor. The impugned order was consequently set aside.

The decision demonstrates that Section 93 cannot be treated merely as a recovery provision. Its invocation necessarily requires the Department to identify the statutory basis on which the legal representative is sought to be made liable.

Assessment against a deceased person and the requirement of fresh proceedings

The courts have consistently held that an assessment order passed against a person who was already dead is legally unsustainable. At the same time, such a finding does not necessarily prevent the Department from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law against the appropriate legal representative.

In D. Pitchairajan v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Madurai, 2024 (87) G.S.T.L. 304 (Mad.), the Madras High Court reiterated that an assessment order passed against a deceased person cannot be sustained. However, the Department was not precluded from undertaking fresh proceedings after providing the legal heirs an opportunity to explain and substantiate the alleged discrepancies on merits.

A similar principle was recognised in Unnikrishnan R, Sujatha R, Nalinakshi Amma v. Union of India, 2024 (89) G.S.T.L. 56 (Mad.). The Court observed that an order passed against a dead person is non est in law and directed the State Tax Officer to issue notice to the legal representatives. The Court further observed that proceedings could be initiated in accordance with law where the successor was carrying on the business of the deceased.

The decision in S. Anand Sathya v. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, 2024 (7) TMI 50 – Madras High Court, also illustrates the manner in which the defect can be cured through fresh adjudication. The Court directed that the Department shall serve a copy of notice that preceded the quashed order (passed against the deceased) to his legal heirs within 30 days of receipt of the order passed by this court. The quashed order shall be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice to be furnished. The legal heirs were expected to reply to such Show Cause Notice within two months of receipt. The Department was to endeavor to pass fresh orders on merits preferably within three months thereafter. The opportunity to be heard should be provided.

Therefore, the judicial approach has generally been to distinguish between an invalid order passed against a deceased person and the underlying tax dispute. While the former cannot be sustained, the latter may, where permissible under Section 93, be adjudicated afresh after following the statutory procedure.

Mere relationship with the deceased is not sufficient

Another important aspect emerging from the recent jurisprudence is that a legal representative cannot automatically be treated as a person continuing the business of the deceased merely because of his/her relationship with the deceased.

In Smt. Usha Gupta, Wife of Lt. Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta (Proprietor of M/s S.K. Gupta & Co.) v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate, 2024 (10) TMI 130 – Delhi High Court, the Court set aside the show cause notice issued against the deceased sole proprietor. At the same time, it clarified that the Department would not be precluded from issuing a fresh notice to the legal representatives or any other person if it was established that the business of the deceased taxpayer was being carried on by such person.

This distinction assumes importance because Section 93(1)(a) applies where the business is actually continued. The mere existence of a familial relationship with the deceased proprietor cannot, by itself, establish such continuation.

The Jharkhand High Court adopted a similar approach in Rishi Shangari v. Union of India, 2025 (4) TMI 1235 – Jharkhand High Court. In that case, an order in Form GST DRC-07 was passed in respect of the proprietary concern of the petitioner’s deceased father, who had died in 2018. The Department relied upon Section 93(1)(a). However, there was no material demonstrating that the petitioner had continued the business of his father. On the contrary, the petitioner had obtained a fresh GST registration after his father’s death.

In the absence of material establishing continuation of the deceased’s business, the Court held the order to be perverse, based on no evidence and unsustainable.

The principle is therefore clear: Section 93(1)(a) cannot be invoked on the basis of assumption; the Department must establish the factual foundation for treating the legal representative or another person as a person continuing the business of the deceased.

Liability is not transferable to a separate legal entity merely because of association with the deceased

The issue becomes even more significant where the Department seeks to recover the dues of a deceased proprietor from a company or another taxable person having a separate legal identity.

In BKR Services Private Limited and Santosh Kumar Rudraswamy Kabbinakanthimatha v. State of Karnataka, 2026 (8) TMI 774 – Karnataka High Court, recovery notices in Form GST DRC-13 were issued in relation to dues of a proprietary concern of a deceased proprietor. One of the petitioners was a private limited company.

The Karnataka High Court held that the private limited company was a distinct and separate legal entity from the proprietary concern of the deceased. Consequently, recovery notices could not be issued against the company merely in relation to the dues of the deceased proprietor. The Court also found that the adjudication orders concerning the legal representatives had failed to examine the applicability of Section 93(1)(a) or Section 93(1)(b). The orders and corresponding DRC-07 summaries were therefore set aside and the matter was restored for fresh consideration after permitting the legal representatives to submit detailed replies.

The decision reinforces the proposition that Section 93 does not permit the Department to bypass the separate legal personality of an entity. Liability must first be established against the person upon whom the statute permits such liability to be imposed.

Section 93 must be read with Section 75

The recent jurisprudence also establishes that Section 93 cannot be read in isolation from the procedural safeguards contained in Section 75 of the CGST Act.

Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where an adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Section 75(6), in turn, requires the proper officer to set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision in the order.

Accordingly, where the Department seeks to fasten liability upon a legal representative, the legal representative must be given an effective opportunity to contest the proposed liability and the resulting order must disclose the factual and legal basis for imposing such liability.

This principle was expressly recognised by the Rajasthan High Court in Chotu Devi, Ajmer v. Union of India, 2026 (8) TMI 308 – Rajasthan High Court. The Court held that although Section 93 permits recovery of tax, interest and penalty from a legal representative out of the estate of the deceased, the provision is subject to the safeguards under Section 75. The assessment proceedings were set aside because no independent notice had been issued to the legal heir and the order was not a reasoned order.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court adopted a similar approach in SSS Agro Foods v. Assistant Commissioner ST, Kakinada, 2026 (8) TMI 899 – Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Thus, the procedural requirement is not merely technical. The legal representative is a distinct person who must be brought within the proceedings through due process before liability can be enforced against him or her.

Participation of legal heirs does not automatically validate defective proceedings

An important question is whether participation by legal heirs in proceedings can cure an order that was originally passed against a deceased person.

The Orissa High Court, in M/s J.S. Enterprisers v. Superintendent, Central GST and CX Division, Cuttack-I, 2026 (7) TMI 1524 – Orissa High Court, held that a valid adjudicatory proceeding must commence against an existing person. Merely because legal heirs participated in proceedings, despite the Department having knowledge of the proprietor’s death, does not necessarily validate proceedings that were otherwise initiated or continued against the deceased.

The underlying principle is that jurisdiction and procedural validity cannot be founded merely upon the subsequent participation of a person who was not properly brought into the proceedings in accordance with the statutory scheme.

Fresh adjudication under Section 93(1)(b)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in Sri B. Nagendra Reddy v. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Ongole, 2026 (8) TMI 897 – Andhra Pradesh High Court, further illustrates the consequences where an appellate order concerns a sole proprietorship whose proprietor had died before the assessment order.

The appellate proceedings were held invalid and the matter was remanded to the Department for passing a fresh order in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 93(1)(b), after providing the legal representatives an opportunity of being heard.

The consistent judicial approach therefore appears to be that where the underlying tax dispute may still be examined on merits, the appropriate course is ordinarily to set aside the defective proceedings and permit fresh adjudication in accordance with law rather than treating the death of the taxable person as automatically extinguishing the substantive tax dispute.

Emerging principles from the recent jurisprudence

The recent decisions collectively indicate the following principles regarding Section 93 of the CGST Act:

• Death does not automatically extinguish tax, interest or penalty liability. Section 93 expressly contemplates determination of liability even after the death of the taxable person.
• The manner of liability depends upon the status of the business after death. Where the business is continued, Section 93(1)(a) may apply. Where the business is discontinued, Section 93(1)(b) applies.
• Where the business is discontinued, the liability of the legal representative is restricted to the estate of the deceased and to the extent that the estate is capable of meeting the charge.
• A legal representative cannot automatically be treated as a successor carrying on the deceased’s business. There must be material establishing continuation of business for Section 93(1)(a) to apply.
• Proceedings cannot simply continue in the name of a deceased person. An order passed against a dead person is liable to be set aside as non est in law.
• The legal representative must receive an effective opportunity of hearing. Section 93 has to be read with the safeguards contained in Section 75(4) and 75(6).
• The Department must ascertain the relevant factual circumstances. In cases falling under Section 93(1)(b), the existence and extent of the deceased’s estate become relevant to the extent of recovery.
• Recovery against an unrelated or distinct legal entity cannot be sustained merely because of its association with the deceased proprietor. The statutory conditions for fastening liability must independently be satisfied.
• Defective proceedings may be set aside without deciding the underlying tax dispute on merits. Courts and the Tribunal have generally left the substantive tax issues open and permitted fresh adjudication after following the prescribed procedure.

Conclusion

The recent judicial trend under Section 93 of the CGST Act demonstrates that the provision seeks to strike a balance between two competing considerations: the legitimate interest of the Revenue in recovering tax dues and the legal protection available to persons who were not themselves liable for the deceased taxpayer’s business obligations.

Section 93 undoubtedly recognises that death does not bring an end to a tax liability. However, it does not confer an unrestricted power upon the Department to recover the dues of a deceased taxpayer from his legal heirs or from any person associated with him. The statutory distinction between continuation and discontinuance of business assumes considerable importance. Where the business is discontinued, the liability of the legal representative is specifically confined to the estate of the deceased and to the extent of such estate.

Equally significant is the procedural safeguard. Before liability is fastened upon a legal representative, the Department must identify the statutory basis for such liability, issue appropriate notice, provide an effective opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order. The recent decisions of the GSTAT and various High Courts demonstrate that failure to follow these requirements can render the consequential proceedings unsustainable.

The emerging position may therefore be succinctly stated: Section 93 permits the survival and enforcement of tax liability after the death of a taxable person, but it does not permit the survival of defective proceedings against a person who is no longer alive. The liability may survive; the procedure must still comply with law.

For the Revenue, this means that proceedings involving deceased taxpayers require careful identification of the person legally liable, the status of the business and the estate available for recovery. For legal representatives, Section 93 provides an important statutory safeguard against an unrestricted assumption of personal liability for the dues of the deceased.

The increasing number of decisions on this issue indicates that the question is no longer merely whether GST dues survive the death of a taxpayer, but how those dues can lawfully be determined and recovered after such death. The answer, increasingly, lies in a careful and procedural application of Section 93 read with Section 75 of the CGST Act.

References

1. Vijayan Sahadevan (Deceased) v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram, 2026 (8) TMI 1362 – GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram

2. D. Pitchairajan v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Madurai, 2024 (87) G.S.T.L. 304 (Mad.), the Madras High Court

3. Unnikrishnan R, Sujatha R, Nalinakshi Amma v. Union of India, 2024 (89) G.S.T.L. 56 (Mad.)

4. S. Anand Sathya v. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, 2024 (7) TMI 50 – Madras High Court

5. Smt. Usha Gupta, Wife of Lt. Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta (Proprietor of M/s S.K. Gupta & Co.) v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate, 2024 (10) TMI 130 – Delhi High Court

6. Rishi Shangari v. Union of India, 2025 (4) TMI 1235 – Jharkhand High Court

7. BKR Services Private Limited and Santosh Kumar Rudraswamy Kabbinakanthimatha v. State of Karnataka, 2026 (8) TMI 774 – Karnataka High Court

8. Chotu Devi, Ajmer v. Union of India, 2026 (8) TMI 308 – Rajasthan High Court

9. SSS Agro Foods v. Assistant Commissioner ST, Kakinada, 2026 (8) TMI 899 – Andhra Pradesh High Court

10. M/s J.S. Enterprisers v. Superintendent, Central GST and CX Division, Cuttack-I, 2026 (7) TMI 1524 – Orissa High Court

11. Sri B. Nagendra Reddy v. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Ongole, 2026 (8) TMI 897 – Andhra Pradesh High Court