Madhu Aggarwal, Legal Representative Of Late Sh Ramphal Aggarwal Since Deceased, Proprietor Of vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

This petition is directed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority confirming the demand of GST in respect of Financial Year 2017-18 against a ‘dead person’.

It transpires that the person concerned had closed his business operations and his registration under GST was cancelled on 28.04.2020. Notices were issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the ‘Act of 2017’), against the person concerned on 03.08.2024. The order-in-original has thereafter been passed.

Undisputedly, the person holding registration in his name died on 23.05.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that such facts were highlighted before the authorities, yet the Department is proceeding against a ‘dead person’. The submission is that on this short ground alone, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed. RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Learned counsel for the revenue was allowed time on the previous occasion to obtain instructions.

As per the instructions made available, the authorities have exercised their juri iction under Section 93(1)(b) of the Act of 2017, which reads as under:- “(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 before his death but has remained unpaid or is determined after his death.”

Learned counsel representing the revenue also states that against the order(s) impugned, the petitioner has a remedy of filing a further appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. 7. From the materials placed on record, it remains undisputed that the Show Cause Notice as well as the order impugned in the present writ petition have been passed against a ‘dead person’. Even though, in respect of liabilities which existed against the person concerned, the recovery can be made by the Department from his estate, in order to pass a valid order in this regard, the person who has inherited the estate of the deceased and from whom the recovery is now proposed to be made has to be arrayed as a party. An effective opportunity of hearing has also to be given to such person.

That admittedly has not been done in the present case.

The mere fact that the present petitioner had appeared and RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Since this has not been done, we find that the principles of natural justice have been breached.

In such circumstances, the mere existence of a remedy of further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal would not be of much avail. Instead of relegating the petitioner to the remedy of further appeal, we are of the view that interference in the peculiar facts of the case is warranted at the level of this Court so that the Department is at liberty to proceed against the rightful heir of the deceased.

In that view of the matter, and in order to facilitate the revenue in proceeding afresh in accordance with law, the orders impugned in the instant writ petition are quashed.

With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR]