Smt. S. Mallika Begum vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Now Joint Commissioner (St))

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order dated November 8, 2023. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the order was passed against a dead person. While Section 93(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides for continuation of assessment in certain special situations, including against dead persons, it stipulates that the legal representative shall be liable to pay tax, interest, or penalty out of the estate. The Court noted that the order was passed ex-parte without proper notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Even if notices were sent to the deceased's address, the judgment implies that the proceedings should have been properly initiated against the legal representative. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority for appropriate decision after due notice and an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. The period from the date of receipt of the order till the date of its final disposal was to be excluded for limitation purposes.

Facts

The petitioner's husband, proprietor of M/s. Rahimaniya Trading Co., passed away on December 3, 2017, and his business was closed. Subsequently, the petitioner received an order dated November 8, 2023, from the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (now Joint Commissioner (ST)), Ananthapuramu, demanding Rs. 3,93,131/- for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner contends that this order was passed ex-parte, without notice to her, and against a deceased person and a non-existent business entity, despite the authorities being aware of her husband's death. She argues the order is arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte suo-motu revision order passed by the First Respondent for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, against a deceased person and a non-existent business entity is arbitrary, capricious, mischievous, illegal, and without jurisdiction, rendering it void and unenforceable against the petitioner? 2. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in initiating and passing the impugned order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed against a dead person and a non-existent business, making it void ab initio. She also contended that she was unaware of the proceedings and that the order was passed without any opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the fact that her husband died on December 3, 2017, and the business was closed thereafter. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that notices had been sent to the address given by the petitioner's husband, and therefore, the petitioner's contentions of unawareness could not be accepted. However, the judgment notes that even assuming notices were served on the petitioner, the same could not be treated as valid notices if they were sent in the name of the deceased.