Nigil T vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeal)

Original PDF →
WP(MD)/20626/2024HC MadrasGSTCNR HCMD01090859202403 September 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ8 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), which affirmed an earlier order dated 02.01.2023. The core of the challenge was that the entire adjudication and assessment proceedings, initiated by a show cause notice dated 28.03.2022, were conducted in the name of the petitioner's father, who had passed away on 19.05.2021. This fact of death was brought to the notice of the respondent authorities. Despite this, the authorities proceeded to pass orders in the name of the deceased person. The petitioner contended that any assessment made in the name of a dead person is a nullity.

Held

The Court held that an assessment proceeding conducted in the name of a deceased person, especially when the fact of death was known to the authorities, is a substantive defect and vitiates the entire proceeding. The Court reasoned that the GST Act requires assessment to be made in the name of an existing person or entity, and no assessment can be made in the name of a dead person. Section 93 of the CGST Act, which deals with special provisions regarding liability in certain cases, does not dispense with this requirement. The Court found support in the judgment of R.Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India, which dealt with a similar issue. The Court noted that participation by the legal representative in the proceedings does not cure this fundamental defect. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were granted liberty to issue a common notice to the legal heirs of the deceased and proceed afresh.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment proceeding under the GST Act initiated and concluded in the name of a deceased person, after the fact of death was brought to the notice of the authorities, is a nullity in law? This issue turns on the interpretation of Section 93 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that an assessment made in the name of a dead person is void ab initio and a nullity. They contended that Section 93 of the CGST Act, while providing for liability of legal representatives, does not permit assessment in the name of a deceased individual. They relied on the judgment in R.Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India. Revenue's arguments: The respondents did not appear to raise specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the nullity of the assessment. However, they sought liberty to issue a common notice to the legal heirs of the deceased and proceed in accordance with law.

Sections Cited

Section 93

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: and

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order in appeal No.13 of 2023, dated 30.10.2023, whereby, the order in original, dated 02.01.2023 was affirmed.

2.

The limited ground of challenge is that the entire adjudication / assessment proceeding commencing with issuance of show cause notice, dated 28.03.2022 has been made in the name of the petitioner's father, who had died on 19.05.2021. The death of the petitioner's father was also brought to the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis notice of the respondent. However, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order of adjudication in the name of the dead person. It was submitted that any assessment made in the name of a dead person is a nullity. Though specific grounds have been raised before the appellate authority as to the impermissibility of making assessment in the name of a non-existing entity/person, the same stood rejected by placing reliance on Section 93(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which reads as under: "Section 93. Special provisions regarding liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in certain cases.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), where a person, liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act, dies, then- (a) if a business carried on by the person is continued after his death by his legal representative or any other person, such legal representative or other person, shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act; and (b) if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after his death, his legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act, whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before his death but has remained unpaid or is determined after his death."

3.

A reading of Section 93 would show that Clause (a) only provides that if a business carried on by the person is continued by the legal representative or any other person after his death, such legal representative or other person, who continues, shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty, while Clause (b) provides that if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after his death, his legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty. The above provision does not appear to dispense with the need / requirement to make the assessment in the name of an existing person / entity. No assessment can be made in the name of a dead person under the GST Act. Under the GST Act, in the case of original assessee being a dead person it may be necessary to make the assessment in the name of the legal heirs. The assessment in the name of the dead person more so when the factum of his death has already been informed by the respondent authority, vitiates the entire proceeding. The above defect is a substantive defect. Participation in the assessment proceeding by the legal representative cannot cure the above defect. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.

In this regard, reliance was sought to be placed on a judgment of this as under:

"

9.

There is no dispute that the dealer Mr.Radhakrishnan Pillai has died on 11.10.2017 and that the petitioner is one of his legal heirs/legal representatives along with his mother R.Sujatha aged about 62 years, his sister Sreelekshmi aged about 33 years and his grand-mother Nalinakshi Amma aged about 84 years.

10.

The order that has been passed against the dead person is non- est in law. If the petitioner is carrying on the business of the deceased person, then, the remedy is available to the Department to proceed against the petitioner under Section 93 of the TNGST Act, 2017. It appears to be that the petitioner is not carrying on the business of the deceased person.

11.

Be that as it may, since the impugned order has been passed against the dead person, the impugned order is quashed by directing the respondents to issue a common notice to the petitioner representing the interest of the other legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased dealer Mr.Radhakrishnan Pillai, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter proceed in 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the manner known to law, in case the petitioner is carrying on the business of the deceased dealer Mr.Radhakrishnan Pillai."

5.

At this juncture, it was submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents they may be granted liberty to issue common notice to the legal heirs of the deceased T.Tamil Raj, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, proceed in the manner known to law.

6.

Recording the same, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of by granting liberty to the respondents to issue common notice to the legal heirs of the deceased T.Tamil Raj, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, proceed in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 03.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Office of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Circuit House, C.R.Building, P.T.Rajan Road, Bibikulam, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, C.R.Building, P.T.Rajan Road, Bibikulam, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Additional / Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Additional / Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, C.R.Building, Tractor Street, NGO "A" Colony, Tirunelveli-627 007. 4.The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Nagarcoil Range, 48/1-4, First Floor, Shivaraj Building, Tower Junction, Nagarcoil-629 001. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

, J.

BTR

03.09.

2024

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.