Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir Of Late Devendra Singh Rajput vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Pratibha Rajput, is the legal heir of her late husband, Devendra Singh Rajput, who was the sole proprietor of Shashi Corporation. Devendra Singh Rajput died on April 21, 2021. The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated November 10, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the order was passed after her husband's death and without affording him an opportunity of hearing, rendering it perverse and illegal as it was issued against a deceased person. She also contended that as the legal heir, she could have represented the firm if notice had been served on her.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated November 10, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax against a dead person is non-est in law and therefore liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that an order passed against a deceased individual is fundamentally flawed and lacks legal validity. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that her husband had passed away before the order was issued and that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment order. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner on her address as provided in the petition and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against a deceased proprietor, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the deceased or his legal heir, is legally sustainable? The petitioner argued that the assessment order is per se illegal and perverse because it was passed against a dead person. She contended that since her husband had passed away, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, and the order should be set aside. She further submitted that as the legal heir, she could have represented the firm if proper notice had been served. The State/respondents argued that the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not mandate serving notice to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor. They also contended that notice was sent to the deceased proprietor, which was previously served, and a reminder was sent but not responded to.