V.Sankar (Died) vs. The Assistan Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The appellant, V. Sankar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 29.11.2024. The sole ground for challenge was that both the show cause notice and the assessment order were issued in the name of a deceased person. The learned single judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, granting liberty to raise all grounds and extending the limitation period for filing the appeal. The appellant then filed this writ appeal against the single judge's order. The department contended that interference was not warranted.

Held

The Court acknowledged the principle that issuing a notice or passing an order in the name of a dead person renders the proceedings a nullity. However, the Court found that in this case, the department was aware of the demise of the original assessee, Thiru. V. Shankar. The show cause notices dated 29.03.2023 and 21.06.2024 clearly indicated that notices were issued to S. Vijayan, son of Thiru. Shankar, demonstrating the department's cognizance of the original registrant's death. Therefore, it could not be concluded that the notices and assessment orders stood in the name of the deceased person. The Court also noted that legal heirs are liable only to the extent of inheritance received. Consequently, the Court confirmed the order of the learned single judge, extending the time for filing the appeal by three more weeks and directing the appellate authority to entertain it without reference to limitation. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned single judge erred in not declaring the entire proceedings a nullity, given that the show cause notice and assessment order were allegedly issued in the name of a deceased person, thereby turning on the principles of natural justice and the validity of proceedings against a deceased individual. Petitioner's contention: The learned single judge failed to appreciate that the entire proceedings are a nullity, relying on the decision in CDJ 2022 BHC 267 (Raniben Khimji Patel Legal Heir Khimji Karamshi Patel Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others). Respondent's contention: Interference with the order passed by the learned single judge is not called for.