Judgment
APHC010386092026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21466 OF 2026 Between:
1. SSS AGRO FOODS, 11-41, Yanam Road, Turangi, East Godavari, 37, Andhra Pradesh-533012. Rep. by its wife of the deceased Owner, Smt.
Balusu Bhuvaneswari Devi, W/o. Choudary Surya Pratap Balusu Late. Aged about 42 Years.
...Petitioner AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, KAKINADA PORT. Circle, Kakinada Division, Andhra Pradesh. 533001 2. The Additional Commissioner ST, FAC APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.520010 3. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
522237 4. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -110001 ...Respondents
2
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the adjudicating order dated 31-12- 2024 passed under Section 73 of GST Act 2017 by the 1stRespondent served on the Legal heirs without establishing that the property of the deceased proprietor of the concern has passed and the order at 31- 12-2024 passed after the death of the proprietor, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without jurisdiction and authority of law, passed in contravention of the provisions of the GST Act 2017, more particularly section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017, and also contrary to the judgements of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in (2022) 93 GST 378 (SC) and violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside 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 collection of the impugned Orders dated 31-12-2024 and 28- 03- 2026 pending disposal of the writ petition, else the petitioner would be put to serious loss and hardship and grant Counsel for the Petitioner: M V J K KUMAR 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: 21466 OF 2026
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard Mr.Anurag Sampath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, who appeared through online and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.12.2024 passed against proprietary concern M/s. S.S.S. Agro Foods, the present writ petition is filed.
3.
As per the averments made in the affidavit, the husband of the deponent is proprietor of M/s. S.S.S. Agro Foods and he expired on 03.05.2024. Respondent authorities passed impugned adjudication order on 31.01.2024 and since the husband of the petitioner was proprietor looking after the financial activities of the business, passing of assessment order was not within the knowledge of the deponent. Be that as it may.
4.
Against the assessment order, statutory appeal was filed, but the same was rejected vide Endorsement dated 28.03.2026 on the premise that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute i.e., A.P. GST Act.
4
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that though the factum of death of the proprietor, who was the person looking after the affairs of the business, that deponent is not aware of the proceedings under GST Act, much less, impugned assessment order was urged, the appellate authority has merely rejected the appeal without considering the relevant aspects. That apart, he submits that the impugned proceedings have been passed without affording opportunity, much less, by giving a notice of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Placing reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6029 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025, learned counsel while stating that the deponent of the affidavit i.e., wife of the proprietor of petitioner concern has not inherited any interest out of the proprietary concern, seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
6.
Per contra, Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned order. He submits that as the appeal was filed with a delay, the same was rightly rejected by the appellate authority, therefore, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. Further, the same without availing statutory remedies is not sustainable.
7.
This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
8.
Death certificate dated 01.06.2024 (Ex.P.2) indicates that Balusu Surya Prathap Chowdary purportedly the proprietor of the writ petitioner died on
5
03.05.2024, i.e., much prior to passing of the assessment order dated 31.12.2024. It is settled position that an order passed against dead person does not have any legal efficacy. Further, as seen from the impugned proceedings, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without adverting to the relevant statutory provision, more particularly, Section 75(4) of GST Act, which contemplates opportunity of personal hearing before passing assessment orders.
9.
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:- “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.”
6
10.
In the light of above said decision and the conclusions arrived at supra, the proceedings dated 31.12.2024 are set aside. Rejection Endorsement dated 28.03.2026 emanating from the assessment proceedings is also not sustainable since the original order itself is non est in Law. Therefore, the same is declared invalid.
11.
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. Balusu Bhuvaneswari Devi.
12.
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.
13.
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
13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No. 21466 OF 2026
Dt. 04.08.2026
GVK