Unnikrishnan vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that an order passed against a dead person is non est in law. However, it noted that the petitioners had prolonged the litigation and had not actively pursued a remission of the case earlier, unlike in the cited precedent. The Court acknowledged the liability of legal representatives under Section 93(1)(b) of the GST enactments for tax due from a deceased person, to the extent of the estate. Balancing the interests of both parties, the Court quashed the impugned order. As a condition for denovo adjudication, the petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days. They were also required to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, treating the impugned order as an addendum. If these conditions were met, the third respondent was to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. Failure to comply would allow the respondents to recover the tax as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court expressly left undecided the extent of the estate's liability.

Facts

The petitioners, legal heirs of a deceased assessee, challenged an order dated 30.06.2023 issued by the State Tax Officer (3rd respondent). This order confirmed a demand raised via a Show Cause Notice dated 01.03.2023, issued in the name of the deceased assessee who passed away on 11.10.2017. The petitioners argued that the order was passed against a dead person, rendering it void. They referred to a previous writ petition (W.P.(MD) No.12464 of 2024) filed by them for the same tax period (2017-18) where a similar order was quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondents for fresh notice to the legal heirs. The present petition also pertains to the tax period 2017-18.

Key Issues

1. Whether an order confirming a demand under GST law, passed in the name of a deceased assessee, is legally sustainable? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and validity of proceedings against a deceased person). 2. Whether the Court should grant similar relief as in W.P.(MD) No.12464 of 2024, by quashing the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the respondents? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned order is void ab initio as it was passed against a deceased person. They relied on the principle that an order against a dead person is non est in law and cited the precedent set by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.12464 of 2024, which quashed a similar order and directed the issuance of fresh notice to the legal heirs. They contended that the same relief should be granted in this case. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the Court's observations indicate a consideration of the petitioners' liability as legal representatives under Section 93(1)(b) of the GST enactments and the petitioners' conduct in prolonging the litigation.