P Maheshwari vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, P. Maheshwari, challenged an Order-in-Original No. 35/2024-GST dated 28.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Thanjavur Division (5th respondent). The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed against a deceased person, as evidenced by a death certificate produced. The order was issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner sought its quashing on grounds of being arbitrary, void, contrary to Section 168A of the CGST Act, and violative of constitutional provisions. The respondents included the Union of India, GST Council, CBIC, State of Tamil Nadu, and the Assistant Commissioner.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.08.2024, passed by the 5th respondent, was a 'non est' order because it was made against a deceased person, as evidenced by the death certificate produced by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found the order liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that an order passed against a person who is no longer alive is a nullity and has no legal standing. The ratio decidendi is that any quasi-judicial or administrative order passed against a deceased individual without impleading their legal heirs is void and unenforceable. The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. However, it granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notice to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee. The petitioner was directed to produce the legal heirship certificate within two weeks for the respondents to proceed further.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original, passed against a deceased person, is a valid and subsisting order? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that an order passed against a dead person is a 'non est' order, meaning it is void ab initio and cannot have any legal effect. The petitioner relied on the death certificate to substantiate this claim. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The petitioner also contended that the order was arbitrary, void, contrary to Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, but the primary basis for the court's decision was the order being passed against a deceased individual.