Jyotishmita Kalita vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.
Held
The Court held that the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 08.11.2019 and the consequential order dated 01.02.2022, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division-I, Guwahati, were nullified and set aside. The reasoning was that these documents were issued to a person who was already deceased at the time of issuance. The Court found this action to be contrary to law and procedure. The ratio decidendi is that any demand or notice issued by tax authorities to a deceased individual without proper legal representation or substitution is void ab initio. The Court granted liberty to the respondents in the CGST to initiate appropriate proceedings as provided under the Finance Act, 1994, following due procedure of law for the recovery of Service Tax, implying that they should proceed against the legal heirs or estate if permissible and in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Jyotishmita Kalita, is the widow of the late Dharani Kalita. Her husband passed away on July 24, 2019. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Division-I, Guwahati, issued a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice on November 8, 2019, to the deceased husband, demanding Service Tax of Rs. 14,38,451/-. Subsequently, on February 1, 2022, the Assistant Commissioner issued an order under the Finance Act, 1994, demanding the same amount for the financial year 2014-15, along with cess, interest, fines under Sections 77(1) and 77(2), and a penalty under Section 78. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these actions, as they were directed against a deceased person.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 08.11.2019 and the consequential order dated 01.02.2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division-I, Guwahati, are valid when they were issued to a deceased individual, thereby violating principles of natural justice and procedural law? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and order were issued against her deceased husband, which is legally untenable and procedurally incorrect, as a deceased person cannot respond to a show cause notice or be liable for demands. The entire action is a nullity. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent CGST submitted that the respondents only became aware of the death of Dharani Kalita after the writ petition was filed. They did not contest the fact that the notices were issued to a deceased person.
Sections Cited
Section 73(2), Section 75, Section 77(1), Section 77(2), Section 78
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
20-06-2022 Heard Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for the respondent No.
Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, Central GST for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner her
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.