M Prabhu vs. The Superintendent Of GST And C. Ex

Held

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the first respondent in the name of the deceased assessee was liable to be quashed. While Section 93 of the GST enactment addresses the succession of business, the Court noted its consistent practice of quashing orders passed against deceased individuals and remitting the cases back to the authorities. The reasoning is based on upholding the principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The first respondent was directed to pass final orders expeditiously, preferably within three months. Failure to comply would result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed. The ratio is that orders passed against deceased individuals, even if successors are not explicitly required to be issued fresh notices under Section 93, must be quashed to uphold natural justice, and the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication after the successor files a reply.

Facts

The petitioner, M. Prabhu, is the son and legal heir of the deceased assessee, G. Mayandi, proprietor of M/S. Neevi Enterprises. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Superintendent of GST & C.Ex, Pudukkottai-1 Range, bearing Order in Original No. 07/2025-GST-PDK-1, dated April 29, 2025. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in the name of the deceased assessee, which was illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents are the Superintendent of GST & C.Ex and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the first respondent in the name of a deceased assessee is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of Section 93 of the respective GST enactment? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed against a deceased individual, violating principles of natural justice. Although Section 93 of the GST enactment allows for the continuation of business by a successor without a fresh notice, the petitioner relied on a consistent view of this Court to quash such orders and remit them for fresh consideration. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the procedural defect.