S.B. Enterprises Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Jharkhand High Court)
Summary: The Jharkhand High Court considered a challenge to an order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026 passed against Late Shibu Prasad Das, the sole proprietor of M/s S.B. Enterprises, despite his death on 15th September, 2020. The writ petition was filed through his son, Monty Kumar, who represented the proprietary concern.
The petitioner submitted that the respondents were aware of the proprietor’s death but nevertheless passed the order against him. It was contended that an order made against a dead person was a nullity and could not be enforced against his representative. Reliance was also placed on an earlier order dated 24th January, 2025 in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, where a coordinate Bench of the Court had stayed further proceedings pursuant to a similar order-in-original made after the death of Shibu Prasad Das. The petitioner pointed out that the same respondents had been heard in that earlier proceeding.
The respondents contended that the order had been made against a proprietary firm which continued to survive. They also submitted that there was nothing on record showing that the department had been specifically informed about the proprietor’s death.
The High Court found the impugned order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026 vulnerable because it had been made against a dead person. The Court expressly declined, at that stage, to enter into the disputed question of whether specific intimation of the death had been given to the department. However, it considered the earlier order dated 24th January, 2025 significant because it had been passed after hearing the very same respondents.
The Court observed that the respondents could not claim ignorance of the earlier order, particularly when that order had stayed further proceedings concerning an order made against the same deceased person. Despite this, the Department had, almost a year later, made another order against him.
The Court rejected the relevance of the contention that the proprietary firm continued to exist. At least prima facie, the case concerned a proprietary concern, and once the proprietor had expired, the department was required to give notice to the legal representative if it wished to proceed further. The Court found that this had not been done.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026. At the same time, it left it open to the respondents to take such steps as they might be advised, in accordance with law, to pursue their claims against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, the rule was made absolute, and no order as to costs was passed.
Cases Discussed
- W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, order dated 24th January, 2025, Jharkhand High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We issue Rule in this petition. With the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner is a proprietary concern, now represented by Mr. Monty Kumar, son of Late Shibu Prasad Das, Deoghar, Jharkhand.
4. The petitioner states that the sole proprietor of the petitioner-firm was late Shibu Prasad Das, who expired on 15th September, 2020.
5. Mrs Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the respondents were aware that Shibu Prasad Das had expired on 15th September, 2020, an order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026 was made against him. She further submits that such an order is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the representative of the petitioner (Mr Monty Kumar), who is the son of Late Shibu Prasad Das.
6. Mrs Darshana Poddar Mishra placed on record the order dated 24th January, 2025, made in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, in which a similar order-in-original was challenged on the ground that it was made after Shibu Prasad Das had expired. Therein, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders. She submits that this order was made after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, who are incidentally the same respondents impleaded in this petition.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an order has been made against a proprietary firm which still survives. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that this factum of death was specifically informed to the department.
8. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that the impugned order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026, is vulnerable because it was made against a dead person.
9. At this stage, we do not wish to go into the disputed issue of whether there was any specific intimation. However, we cannot ignore the order dated 24th January, 2025, made in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, who are, incidentally, the very same respondents in this petition.
10. This Court, upon recording the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been made against a dead person, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. The respondents surely cannot claim ignorance of the order dated 24th January, 2025, in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, which was made after hearing them. Still, after almost a year, i.e., on 23rd January, 2026, the Department has chosen to make yet another order against the very same dead person.
11. The contention that the firm continues is neither here nor there. At least, prima facie, this is a case of a proprietary concern. Once the proprietor expires, at least notice should be given to the legal representative if the department wishes to proceed further. This was also not done.
12. For the above reasons, we quash and set aside the order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026. However, we leave it open to the respondents to take such steps as they may be advised and in accordance with the law to pursue their claims against the petitioner herein.
13. The petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026 and by granting the respondents the above liberty, which is to be exercised in terms of the law.
14. The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any orders for costs.
