Sunil Thampy Nair vs. State Of Maharashtra
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sunil Thampy Nair, challenged an order dated December 22, 2023, which raised a GST demand of Rs. 80,62,516/- against his deceased wife, Hemlata. Hemlata had unfortunately passed away on December 29, 2018. The petitioner argued that the order was a nullity as it was passed against a dead person. The State of Maharashtra, the respondent, did not dispute this fact. Following directions from the Court, the petitioner filed an affidavit disclosing the legal representatives of his deceased wife: himself, his son Sahil Sunil Nair, and his minor daughter Sanya Sunil Nair. The affidavit also detailed the sole immovable property owned by Hemlata, located at Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Swami Shanti Prakash Society, Building No. k-512!513, Ulhasnagar 4, District Thane, Maharashtra. The petitioner undertook not to sell or transfer this property until the show cause notice was disposed of.
Held
The Court held that the order dated December 22, 2023, was a nullity and liable to be set aside because it was passed against a deceased person. The Court reasoned that legal proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against an individual who is no longer alive. Therefore, on this fundamental ground, the impugned order was quashed. However, acknowledging the State's right to recover dues from the legal representatives under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Court permitted the respondent to proceed against the legal representatives. The petitioner was directed to provide details of the legal representatives and the assets of the deceased, which he did through an affidavit. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the legal representatives within four weeks and dispose of it within six months from its service, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order and the consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated July 30, 2024, were set aside with liberty to proceed against the legal representatives as stated. All contentions of the parties were left open for determination in the fresh proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated December 22, 2023, raising a GST demand against the petitioner's deceased wife is a nullity and liable to be set aside, considering it was passed against a dead person? (Question of law, relying on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contentions: The order is a nullity on the short ground that it was passed against a deceased individual, rendering it void ab initio. The petitioner relied on the fundamental principle that legal proceedings cannot continue against a person who is no longer alive. Respondent's contentions: The respondent, State of Maharashtra, did not contest the petitioner's argument that the order was a nullity. However, they indicated their entitlement to proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. They proposed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the legal representatives and dispose of it within a stipulated timeframe, following principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 93
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx rsk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.18019 OF 2024 Sunil Thampy Nair …Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri a/w. Ms. Prathibha Namboodiri, Ms. Pallavi Dabak i/b Mr. Tejal S. Darekar, for the Petitioner.. Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP, for the Respondent-State. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 14 JULY 2025 PC:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22 December 2023 made against the petitioner’s wife, who had, unfortunately, expired on 29 December 2018. This order raises a demand of Rs. 80,62,516/- on the petitioner’s deceased wife.
The impugned order is a nullity since it is made against a dead person. On this short ground, the same is required to
2 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx be set aside.
However, under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), the respondents are entitled to proceed against the legal representatives. Accordingly, we had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing legal representatives and the assets of his deceased wife.
The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 6 January 2025 disclosing that his wife, Hemlata, has left behind the following legal representatives: Sr. No. Name Age Relation with the deceased Address
Sunil Thampy Nair 55 Husband A-722/1444, Netaji Tekdi, Sahyadri Nagar, Police Chowki, Ulhasnagar- 5, Thane-421 005
Sahil Sunil Nair 24 Son
Sanya Sunil Nair 15 Daughter
The petitioner’s affidavit further states that Hemlata was the sole owner of the immovable properties having the address at Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Swami Shanti Prakash Society, Building No. k-512!513, Ulhasnagar 4, District Thane, Maharashtra, 421004. Even a copy of the agreement indicating Hemlata’s name is enclosed along with this affidavit.
The affidavit also states that apart from these immovable properties, Hemlata did not own any other property. Mr. Namboodiri pointed out that to date, this property continues to be in the name of Hemlata because the same has not been transferred to the legal representatives.
3 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx
Mr. Deolekar states that within 4 weeks from today, a necessary show cause notice will be issued to the legal representatives now indicated. He further states that the show cause notice will be disposed of within 6 months from the date of its service upon the legal representatives, in accordance with law and on its own merits. He adds that principles of natural justice will be followed before disposing of the show cause notice.
The addresses of legal representatives are already disclosed in the affidavit, a copy of which is supplied to Mr Deolekar. In addition, Mr. Namboodiri states that notices can be issued on the following e-mail ID viz., nairsunil425@gmail.com, the petitioner herein, who will accept the notice on his own behalf and behalf of his son and minor daughter.
Mr. Namboodiri, on instructions, states that until a show cause notice is disposed of within the timeline indicated above, the petitioners will not sell, transfer or otherwise deal with Hemlata’s immovable properties described above.
Mr. Namboodiri, on instructions, states that until a show cause notice is disposed of within the timeline indicated above, the petitioners will not sell, transfer or otherwise deal with Hemlata’s immovable properties described above.
We accept the above statements and direct the petitioners and respondents to act accordingly.
All contentions of all parties are left open.
The impugned order dated 22 December 2023 is set aside with liberty to proceed against the legal representatives
4 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx in the above terms. Consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated 30 July 2024 will not survive and is set aside.
The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any costs.
All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.