C Kannan vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, C. Kannan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Excise, Karur Division. The petitioner's father, the proprietor, passed away on 26.02.2021. Despite this, a show cause notice dated 10.11.2022 was issued, and the impugned order was subsequently passed against the deceased father. The petitioner, as a legal heir, sought to quash the order, arguing it was non-est in law, and requested an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice. The respondent's counsel confirmed these submissions and admitted that the order was passed against a deceased person.

Held

The Court held that an order passed against a dead person is non-est in law and is liable to be set aside. The Court noted that the petitioner's father passed away on 26.02.2021, and subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 10.11.2022, followed by the impugned order dated 08.08.2023, both directed against the deceased. The Court found the petitioner's contention to be correct. Since the petitioner, as a legal heir, undertook to file a reply to the show cause notice on behalf of all legal heirs, the Court was inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The operative directions included setting aside the impugned order, remanding the matter, directing the petitioner to file a reply within six weeks, and instructing the respondent to consider the reply, issue a 14-day notice for a personal hearing, and then pass a fresh order on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether an order passed against a deceased person is legally valid and enforceable under the GST regime? (Question of law turning on principles of natural justice and procedural validity). 2. Whether the petitioner, as a legal heir, should be granted an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice issued to the deceased proprietor? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 08.08.2023, passed against his deceased father (who died on 26.02.2021), is non-est in law and therefore liable to be set aside. He further submitted that he, as a legal heir, is willing to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 10.11.2022 and requested the court to pass appropriate orders. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's counsel confirmed the petitioner's submissions and fairly admitted that the impugned order was indeed passed against the petitioner's father, who is a deceased person. The respondent requested the court to pass appropriate orders.