R.Satheesh vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, legal representatives of the deceased assessee P. Rajendra Prasath, challenged an order for demand proceedings dated 29.08.2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural (West). The petitioners stated that their father's business had been closed after his demise on 03.10.2022, and they were unaware of a notice issued in DRC 01 dated 21.05.2024 for the tax period 2019-20, which led to the impugned order. The respondent argued that under Section 93(1)(b) of the GST enactments, legal representatives are liable for the deceased's tax dues to the extent of the estate. The petitioners offered to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. This decision was made subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash within thirty days of receiving the order. The petitioners were also directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.05.2024, along with supporting documents, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent was instructed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months of the reply and pre-deposit, after giving due notice to the petitioners. Failure to comply with these stipulations would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that while legal representatives can be held liable, a fresh opportunity for adjudication, with a partial pre-deposit, is warranted when there are procedural infirmities or lack of proper notice, especially concerning a deceased assessee's estate.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners, as legal representatives of a deceased assessee, are liable for the tax, interest, or penalty due under the GST Act, even if the business was discontinued and the tax liability was determined after the assessee's death, as per Section 93(1)(b) of the GST enactments? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that due to the closure of their father's business after his demise and their lack of awareness of the show cause notice, the impugned order was passed without proper opportunity. They expressed willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax for a fresh adjudication. Respondent's argument: The respondent argued that Section 93(1)(b) of the GST enactments clearly makes legal representatives liable for the tax, interest, or penalty due from the deceased assessee, irrespective of whether it was determined before or after death, provided the estate is capable of meeting the charge. They asserted the petitioners' liability.
Sections Cited
Section 93(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Government Advocate (Tax), takes notice for the respondent.
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondent.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased assessee, namely, P.Rajendra Prasath, who died on 03.10.2022, have challenged the impugned Assessment Order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 29.08.2024 bearing Ref.No.33AFFPR4783M1ZV/2019-20 of the respondent issued against their father. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the demise of their father, the business carried on by him has been closed. Hence, they did not have any opportunity to visit the portal regarding the notice that was issued in DRC 01 dated 21.05.2024 for the tax period 2019-20, which has culminated in the impugned order dated 29.08.2024. Thus, they suffered the Impugned Order dated 29.08.2024. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Tax) submits that as per Section 93(1)(b) of respective GST enactments, 2017, if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after his death, his legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act, whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined before his death but has remained unpaid or is determined after his death. Hence, the petitioners are liable to pay the tax due against their deceased father.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax as a condition for de 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis novo adjudication.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court Bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-
“It is submitted that the petitioner undertakes to deposit 50% of disputed amount.”
In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the disputed tax in cash as undertaken within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Within such time, the petitioners shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 21.05.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the Impugned Order dated 29.08.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.05.2024. 10. In case the petitioners complie with the above stipulations, the respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply / pre-deposit.
In case the petitioners fail to comply with any of the stipulations, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.
Needless to state, before passing any such order, the respondent shall give due notice to the petitioners.
This Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. W.M.P.(MD) No.16560 of 2026 is allowed. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 05.08.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd To The State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural (West) Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, Madurai – 625020. 05.08.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.