Sikha Borgohain vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, SIKHA BORGOHAIN, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated 29.08.2024 and a summary order dated 30.08.2024. Her father, Anil Borgohain, who had obtained GST registration on 01.07.2017 for his proprietorship firm M/s. Anil Borgohain, expired on 17.09.2021. Despite his death, a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, was issued on 28.05.2024 for the tax period April 2019 – March 2020. The petitioner informed the authorities of her father's demise and requested time to respond. Subsequently, an order was passed imposing Rs.39,82,924/- as outstanding tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 22.07.2025.

Held

The Court held that proceedings initiated against a deceased person are a nullity. The show cause notice dated 28.05.2024 and the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 were set aside and quashed. The Court reasoned that the proceedings were initiated against a dead person, rendering them void. The Court also observed that the petitioner continued to file returns after her father's death, leading the authorities to be unaware of his demise. Regarding limitation, the Court directed that the period from the date of the original show cause notice (28.05.2024) until the certified copy of the High Court's order is served upon the respondent No.6 should be excluded when computing the period of limitation for issuing a fresh notice under Section 73 of the Act. Liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice upon the legal representatives of Late Anil Borgohain.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 28.05.2024 and the consequential order dated 29.08.2024, issued against a deceased individual, are legally sustainable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the period from the issuance of the show cause notice to the service of the High Court's order should be excluded for computing the limitation period for issuing a fresh notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated against a dead person are a nullity. She contended that the authorities were unaware of the death as she continued to file returns on behalf of her deceased father. The revenue contended that the petitioner had not provided information about the death and approached the court late. The judgment also implicitly considers Section 93 of the Act regarding the liability of legal representatives.