M/S S.B. Enterprises, Thro Its Authorized Representative Monty Kumar vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit Jamshedpur

Held

The Court held that the order-in-original dated January 23, 2026, is vulnerable because it was made against a dead person. The Court found it difficult to ignore the previous order dated January 24, 2025, in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, which was passed after hearing the respondents and had stayed further proceedings. The Court noted that despite this, the department proceeded to pass another order against the same deceased person. The Court also stated that even if the firm continues, once the proprietor expires, notice should be given to the legal representative if the department wishes to proceed further, which was not done. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order-in-original dated January 23, 2026. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to take such steps as they may be advised and in accordance with the law to pursue their claims against the petitioner. The issue of whether there was specific intimation of death was left undecided at this stage.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.B. Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, is represented by Monty Kumar, son of the sole proprietor, Late Shibu Prasad Das. The proprietor, Shibu Prasad Das, expired on September 15, 2020. Despite the respondents, Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise Division, being aware of his death, an order-in-original dated January 23, 2026, was passed against him. The petitioner argued that this order is a nullity as it was passed against a deceased person. A previous writ petition (W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025) had challenged a similar order-in-original passed after the proprietor's death, and a coordinate bench had granted a stay. The respondents contended that the proprietary firm still survives and there was no specific intimation of the proprietor's death to the department.

Key Issues

1. Whether an order-in-original passed against a deceased person is a nullity and unenforceable, particularly when the respondents were aware of the death? (Question of law turning on principles of natural justice and procedural validity). 2. Whether the respondents are precluded from passing an order against a deceased proprietor, given a prior order of stay granted by this Court in a similar matter concerning the same respondents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order-in-original dated January 23, 2026, is a nullity because it was passed against a dead person, Shibu Prasad Das, who expired on September 15, 2020. They relied on a previous order dated January 24, 2025, in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, where a coordinate bench stayed proceedings pursuant to a similar order passed against the same deceased proprietor, after hearing the same respondents. The petitioner contended that the respondents' awareness of the prior stay order and the proprietor's death made the subsequent order illegal. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the proprietary firm still survives and that there was nothing on record to show that the fact of the proprietor's death was specifically informed to the department.