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 late Devendra Singh Rajput, who was the sole proprietor of Shashi Corporation. The petitioner challenges an assessment order dated 06.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The assessment order pertains to the firm of which her deceased husband was the proprietor. Devendra Singh Rajput died on 21.04.2021. The petitioner contends that the order is illegal and perverse as it was passed after her husband's death without affording him an opportunity of hearing. She further submits that as his wife, she would have represented the firm had she been served notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 06.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is non-est in law and liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the order was passed against a deceased person, which renders it void. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that an order passed against a dead individual is illegal and perverse. While the State argued that the Act does not require notice to legal heirs and that notice was sent to the deceased, the Court prioritized the fundamental illegality of passing an order against a deceased individual. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order. It directed Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, Smt. Pratibha Rajput, at her given address and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment order passed against a deceased person under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is valid and legal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the assessment order is inherently illegal and perverse because it was passed against a dead person, Devendra Singh Rajput, who died prior to the order's issuance. She asserts that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the deceased, rendering the order void ab initio. Furthermore, she contends that as the legal heir and wife, she should have been notified and given a chance to represent the firm. Revenue's contention: The State/respondents argue that the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not mandate serving notice to the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor. They also claim that notice was sent to the deceased, but no response was received.