Kaushalya Maskara vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Cx, Dalkhola Range, Dinajpur Division Siliguri Comm. And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kaushalya Maskara, is the widow of Lalit Kumar Maskara, the sole proprietor of Agro Service Centre, a registered taxpayer. Lalit Kumar Maskara died on June 30, 2022. The petitioner applied for cancellation of the GST registration on March 4, 2023. Despite this, a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, was issued on September 4, 2023, and an adjudication order was passed on December 19, 2023, in respect of the tax periods July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contends that the proceedings and the subsequent order were passed without making her a party, as she was the legal representative of the deceased taxpayer.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated December 19, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is unsustainable. The reasoning was that the order was passed against a dead person without bringing his legal representative, the petitioner, on record and without notifying her. The Court found that the respondents did not have intimation of the death of Lalit Kumar Maskara, which led to the proceedings being conducted without the petitioner being impleaded. The ratio decidendi is that tax proceedings against a deceased individual must involve their legal representative after proper notification. The Court set aside the impugned order. It also directed the respondents to take immediate steps for cancelling the registration in the name of Lalit Kumar Maskara from the date of the application for cancellation. The Court clarified that this order would not prevent the respondents from taking further steps in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, against a deceased person without bringing his legal representative on record and without notifying her is sustainable in law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order dated December 19, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is unsustainable because it was issued against a deceased person. She further contended that the proceedings were initiated without making her, the legal representative of the deceased taxpayer, a party, and without proper notification to her, despite her having applied for the cancellation of registration. Revenue's arguments: The respondents submitted that they were not aware of the death of Lalit Kumar Maskara at the time the proceedings were conducted, which led to the petitioner not being brought on record.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
30.04.2025 (M/L) Court No.05. (Pritam)
WPA 1726 of 2025
Kaushalya Maskara, Wife of Pre-deceased Lalit Kumar Maskara. -Vs.- Superintendent of CGST & CX, Dalkhola Range, Dinajpur Division Siliguri Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Mr. Parikhit Karmakar.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. U. S. Bhattacharya,
Mr. Kaustav K. Maiti
....for the respondents/CGST.
Mr. Asis Majumder,
Mr. Piyas Chowdhury
...for the Union of India.
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging an adjudication order dated December 19, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in respect of the tax period July 2017 and March 2018. The petitioner is the widow of Lalit Kumar Maskara who had died on June 30, 2022. According to the petitioner, consequent upon the death of the aforesaid Lalit Kumar Maskara, who was the sole proprietor in respect of Agro Service Centre, which was a registered taxpayer within the meaning of the said Act, the petitioner had applied for cancellation of the registration as would appear from
2 the acknowledgement issued in the Form GST REG- 16 dated March 4, 2023. 2. The petitioner would, however, submit that a show- cause had been issued under Section 73 of the said Act on 4th September, 2023 and the same had proceeded without making the petitioner a party. Having regard thereto, the aforesaid order cannot be sustained.
Mr. Maiti, learned advocate representing the respondents would, however, submit that since the respondents did not have intimation with regard to the death of Lalit Kumar Maskara, the aforesaid proceeding was conducted without bringing the petitioner on record.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties and noting that the aforesaid order has been passed, in fact, against a dead person without bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased and without notifying her, I am of the view that the aforesaid order dated December 19, 2023 cannot be sustained the same is accordingly, set aside.
The aforesaid order shall, however, not stand in the way of the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law. The respondents are also directed to take immediate steps for cancelling the
3 registration in the name of Lalit Kumar Maskara with effect from the date of making such application.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition being WPA 1726 of 2025 is disposed of.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.