Case Law Details
Rekha.S Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 01.03.2023 passed under the GST law against a deceased person. The petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased proprietor who carried on business in the name of “M/s. M.K.M. & Sons,” submitted that the proprietor had died on 25.02.2021 and that his death had been intimated to the respondent through an online application on 29.06.2022. Despite such intimation, the respondent issued GST DRC-01A dated 06.07.2022 and GST DRC-01 dated 21.11.2022 in the name of the deceased and subsequently passed the impugned assessment order on 01.03.2023 against him.
The respondent fairly admitted that both the notices and the assessment proceedings had been initiated against the deceased person. The respondent suggested that the notices may be treated as notices issued to the legal heirs, enabling them to submit their reply, following which fresh orders could be passed after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing. The petitioners accepted this course of action but maintained that the assessment order passed against the deceased was liable to be set aside.
The High Court held that the impugned assessment order had been passed against a dead person and was therefore non est in law. On that ground, the Court set aside the assessment order dated 01.03.2023.
The Court further directed that the notice dated 06.07.2022 should be treated as a notice issued to the petitioners as on the date of the order. The petitioners were directed to file their reply within six weeks from receipt of the Court’s order. The respondent was directed to pass fresh appropriate orders after providing the petitioners with an opportunity of personal hearing. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and no order as to costs was passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr. T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, 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 petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased M.K.Girish, who was running business in the name of “M/s.M.K.M.& Sons”. The said M.K.Girish was passed away on 25.02.2021 and the same was intimated to the respondent by way of online application dated 29.06.2022.
4. Further, he would submit that under these circumstances, GST DRC-01A dated 06.07.2022 and GST DRC-01 dated 21.11.2022 was issued by the respondent in the name of deceased M.K.Girish. Thereafter, the aforesaid impugned assessment order was also passed by the respondent on 01.03.2023 against the dead person. Therefore, he would contend that the said assessment order is liable to be set aside, since the said proceedings were initiated against a dead person.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that GST DRC-01A dated 06.07.2022 and GST DRC-01 dated 21.11.2022 was issued against the dead person. Further, he would submit that the said notices may be treated as notice to all the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the M.K.Girish and the petitioners can file their reply to the said notices, thereafter, the respondent will pass appropriate orders after providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioners.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would accept the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, he would submit that since the assessment order was passed against the dead person, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
8. In view of the above, the fact remains that the impugned assessment order came to be passed against the dead person, which is non-est in law and hence, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said impugned order dated 01.03.2023 is set aside.
9. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners shall consider the notice issued by the respondent dated 06.07.2022 as a notice issued to them as on date. Thus, the petitioners are directed to file a reply to the said notice within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders after providing opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner.
10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No cost.
Author Bio
