Late Sri Kommuru Koteswara Rao Proprietor vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner(St)

Facts

The petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Cements & Steels, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) for tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The proprietor passed away on March 7, 2022. Despite being informed of the death and the cancellation of the firm's GST registration from August 3, 2022, the respondent issued assessment orders in the name of the deceased proprietor. The petitioner argued that these orders were passed without following mandatory procedures, lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) and signatures, and were non-est in law as they were against a deceased person. The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, and the petitioner should have availed the appellate remedy.

Held

The Court held that the assessment orders passed against the deceased proprietor were non-est in law, as it is axiomatic that proceedings against a dead person are invalid. The Assessing Officer, despite having knowledge of the proprietor's death, proceeded to finalize the assessments, which could not be countenanced. Regarding the absence of DIN, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors and High Court judgments, which held that orders lacking a DIN number are invalid. The Court also noted that Section 93 of the GST Act deals with the recovery of dues from the deceased's business or estate, but not with the procedure for assessment against a deceased person after their demise. The Court found that the assessment orders were passed without following mandatory procedures, including the absence of DIN and signatures, and were issued against a deceased individual. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment orders and permitted the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing a notice to the legal representative, in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether assessment orders passed against a deceased person, after the tax authority was informed of the death and GST registration cancellation, are valid under the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, specifically concerning Section 93? 2. Whether assessment orders that do not bear a Document Identification Number (DIN) and signatures are invalid under the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, in light of Supreme Court and High Court precedents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without adhering to the mandatory procedure under Section 93 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017. They contended that the orders were non-est in law as they were issued against a deceased individual. Furthermore, the absence of a DIN and signatures rendered the orders invalid, citing decisions from the Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors and High Court judgments in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa and Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act.