Case Law Details
Rekha. S Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Introduction: In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court recently ruled on a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) on 01.03.2023. The petition, filed by Rekha.S, brought to light a unique circumstance where a GST assessment order was issued against a deceased person, M.K.Girish, who had been running a business named “M/s.M.K.M.& Sons.” The judgment delves into the intricacies of the case and its implications for the legal heirs.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that M.K.Girish passed away on 25.02.2021, and the respondent was duly informed through an online application dated 29.06.2022. Despite the acknowledgment of the demise, the GST DRC-01A dated 06.07.2022 and GST DRC-01 dated 21.11.2022 were issued in the name of the deceased. Subsequently, an assessment order was passed against the deceased M.K.Girish on 01.03.2023.
The petitioner contended that initiating proceedings against a dead person was legally untenable, seeking the set-aside of the assessment order. The respondent, while acknowledging the issuance of notices against the deceased, suggested considering these notices as applicable to all legal heirs. The court accepted this suggestion, directing the petitioners to respond within six weeks.
The Madras High Court, in its considered view, declared the impugned assessment order against the dead person as non-est in law, leading to its overturning. The court further directed the legal heirs to treat the notices as addressed to them, necessitating a response within six weeks. The respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders after providing opportunities for personal hearings to the petitioners.
Conclusion: The judgment from the Madras High Court provides relief to the legal heirs of M.K.Girish, setting aside the GST assessment order initiated against the deceased. The court’s directive for the petitioners to respond within a stipulated period ensures a fair opportunity for the legal heirs to present their case. This ruling emphasizes the importance of due process and fairness in GST proceedings, even in unique situations involving the demise of the assessed party.
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. 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 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
