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. The petitioner challenges an assessment order dated 14.11.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur Circle 01, under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The assessment order was issued after the death of Devendra Singh Rajput on 21.04.2021. The petitioner argues that the order is perverse and illegal as it was passed against a deceased person without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. She further contends that as the wife, she would have represented the firm had she been served notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent No. 2, dated 14.11.2022, is non-est in law as it was passed against a dead person. The Court reasoned that an order passed against a deceased individual, without any legal representation or opportunity of hearing for their estate or legal heirs, is fundamentally flawed and liable to be set aside. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that she, as the wife and legal heir, would have represented the firm had she been properly notified. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside. The Court directed the respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner at her given address and thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The issue of whether notice was sent to the deceased before his death and not responded to was considered but did not alter the outcome regarding the order being passed against a dead person.

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 valid and legal? The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order is per se illegal and perverse because it was passed after the death of the proprietor, Devendra Singh Rajput, and no opportunity of hearing was granted to him. She contended that as the legal heir, she would 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 before his death, which he did not respond to.