Chotu Devi Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition filed by Chotu Devi, wife and legal heir of late Hansa Ram Choudhary, sole proprietor of M/s Shri Satguru Marbles Industry. Hansa Ram Choudhary died on 30.12.2025. GST proceedings had resulted in demands of ₹8,22,310, ₹1,57,600 and ₹12,29,041 towards tax, along with corresponding interest and penalties. An order under Section 74 of the CGST/RGST Act was passed on 31.12.2025, one day after his death, followed by an Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2026. The petitioner alleged that she was neither issued notice nor impleaded in the proceedings nor given an opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner contended that the proprietorship concern had no separate legal existence from its proprietor and that the orders were void and non est as they were passed against a deceased person, besides violating Sections 75(4) and 75(6) of the CGST Act. The respondents relied upon Section 93 of the CGST Act, submitting that tax, interest or penalty could be recovered from legal representatives even after the assessee’s death.
The High Court held that the petitioner could not claim immunity from tax liability, if any, because Section 93(1)(b) expressly provides that where a business is discontinued due to the death of the person liable, the legal representative is liable to discharge the tax, interest or penalty from the estate of the deceased, to the extent the estate can meet the charge. However, the Court held that Section 93 is subject to the requirements of Section 75. Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, while Section 75(6) requires the proper officer to set out the relevant facts and basis of the decision.
