P Shathish Kumar vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, P. Shathish Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the first respondent (State Tax Officer) and the second respondent (Commercial Tax Officer). The impugned orders pertained to GST for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner contended that the proprietor of the firm, Ponnudurai, passed away on May 15, 2025, and the petitioner, as one of his legal heirs, only recently became aware of the orders. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed against a deceased person. The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, conceded that the proprietor had passed away before the show cause notice (issued September 19, 2025) and the assessment order (dated December 23, 2025) were issued.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were not sustainable under law. It was undisputed that the proprietor of the firm passed away on May 15, 2025. The show cause notice was issued on September 19, 2025, and the assessment order was passed on December 23, 2025. Therefore, both the issuance of the show cause notice and the passing of the assessment order occurred subsequent to the proprietor's death. The Court found this to be a clear violation of legal principles. Consequently, the impugned orders dated September 19, 2025, and December 23, 2025, were set aside. The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice on behalf of the legal heirs of the proprietor within six weeks of receiving the order. The first respondent was then directed to issue notice to the petitioner, afford a personal hearing, and pass orders in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders passed by the respondents are illegal and without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, given that they were issued subsequent to the death of the proprietor of the firm, in violation of Section 2(17) of the CGST Act, 2017 (or equivalent SGST Act provision) which defines 'person' and implies legal standing? Petitioner's contention: The impugned orders are unsustainable in law as they were passed against a deceased person, violating fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner, as a legal heir, only recently became aware of these proceedings. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that if the petitioner undertakes to file a reply on behalf of his deceased father, the impugned orders could be set aside and remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration.