Judgment
APHC010399502026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 22040 OF 2026 Between:
1. JARUGU HARINADHA REDDY(DIED), Rep. by his mother, Jarugu liakshmidevamma, W/o Late Jarugu Munireddy, aged about 91 years, R/o D.No.27/53, Chenchu Reddy Gari Palli, Madhavaram Rayachoty, YSR District, Andhra Pradesh - 516 269 ...Petitioner AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERST, Rayachoti Circle, Kadapa Division, YSR District - 516 269 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Dept. State Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi- 522 241 3. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the Assessment Order and Summary of Order in Form
2
GST DRC-07 dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 and the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 1 for the tax period from April, 2019 to March, 2020, all of which were issued against and concluded in the name of Late Jarugu Harinadha Reddy who had died on 04.03.2022 and was a dead and non-existent person on each of the said dates, in view of cancellation of registration w.e.f 30.06.2022 on 02.04.2023, as being non-est in law, void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to Sections 74 and 93 of the Act, and consequently set aside and quash the same IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings, including the recovery of tax, interest and penalty pursuant to the impugned Assessment Order and Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 74 of the APGST Act, 2017 for the tax period from April, 2019 to March, 2020 Counsel for the Petitioner: L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 22040 OF 2026
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Soma Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing respondent Nos.1 & 2. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2.
Aggrieved by the Show-Cause-Notice dated 23.09.2025 and consequential assessment order dated 13.01.2026, against proprietary concern M/s. Jarugu Harinadha Reddy, the present writ petition is filed.
3.
As per the averments made in the affidavit, the son of the deponent was proprietor and he expired on 04.03.2022. Respondent authorities issued Show-Cause-Notice dated 23.09.2025 and subsequently, passed assessment order on 13.01.2026 against the proprietor, since the son of the petitioner was proprietor looking after the financial activities of the business, initiation of proceedings by the respondents was not within the knowledge of the deponent. Be that as it may.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to writ petition inter alia submits that Mr. Jarugu Harinadha Reddy alone was managing the proprietary concern and pursuant his death, the business came to standstill, much less, there was no active establishment of staff or administrative mechanism to
4
receive and respond to any communication from the Tax Department and that GST registration was also cancelled w.e.f. 30.06.2022 on 02.04.2023. He submits that the deponent is the mother of the proprietor aged about 91 years and not aware of ongoing proceedings initiated by the respondents, which came to light only when the elder son of the petitioner checked the emails of the deceased. Placing reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6029 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025 and W.P.No.17126 of 2026 dated 01.07.2026, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
5.
Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned order. He submits that the remedy of appeal has not been availed and the writ petition is filed with a delay, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
6.
This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
7.
Death certificate dated 03.08.2022 (Ex.P.3) indicates that Jarugu Harinadha Reddy purportedly the proprietor died on 04.03.2022, i.e., much prior to passing of the Show-Cause-Notice dated 23.09.2025 and assessment order dated 13.01.2026. It is settled position that any order passed against dead person does not have any legal efficacy.
8.
At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of decision in W.P.No.6029 of 2025, which is applicable to the present facts:-
5
“6. It is settled law that the assessments and other proceedings can only be initiated against the persons who are living and such proceedings against death person would not be valid. However, the fact remains that, under Section 93 of the GST Act, the dues of the death person can be recovered either from the business he had set up or from his estate. In such circumstances, in the absences of any provision, this Court would have to be hold that the only practicable way of settling the affairs of the death person would be to direct the assessment being carried out by involving either the representative or person carrying on the business of a death person or which such business is not being carried on, by involving the legal representative who be holding the estate of the deceased person.
7. In the said circumstances, since the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased person, being his son, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, dated 25.01.2024, with a direction to carry out a fresh assessment after involving the petitioner herein, by issuing a notice to the petitioner. Needless to say, any recovery that may be initiated, after an Order of assessment, shall be only against the estate of a deceased person and against the petitioner to the extent of the estate of his deceased father, which is available to the petitioner.”
9.
In the light of above said decision and the conclusion arrived at supra, the Show-Cause-Notice dated 23.09.2025 and consequential assessment order dated 13.01.2026, are declared invalid and the same are set-aside.
10.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and proceed with the assessment proceedings after giving due opportunity of hearing to the deponent of the affidavit herein Smt. Jarugu Lakshmidevamma.
6
11.
Needless to say that the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
12.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
GVK
7
90 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No. 22040 OF 2026
Dt. 06.08.2026
GVK