R. Arul Murugan vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court held that assessment orders passed against a deceased person are illegal and without jurisdiction. Following the consistent view of the High Court, the Court decided to quash the impugned assessment orders. The Court reasoned that it is a settled principle that proceedings cannot continue against a person who is no longer alive. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed against a dead person is a nullity and liable to be set aside. The Court directed the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits after the petitioner files a reply to the show cause notices, treating them as an addendum to the original show cause notices. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order, subject to the petitioner filing the reply within the same period. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, son of the deceased assessee Late A. Ramakrishnan, filed four writ petitions challenging assessment orders issued by the State Tax Officer. The deceased assessee passed away on September 14, 2021, during the Covid-19 pandemic. The impugned assessment orders, dated December 28, 2023, April 22, 2024, January 21, 2025, and January 22, 2025, were passed against the deceased assessee for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2020-21. Consequential demand notices in Form GST DRC-16 dated June 12, 2025, were also issued. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and prevent recovery of the demanded amounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether assessment orders passed against a deceased person are legally valid and tenable under the GST enactments? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed against a dead person, rendering them illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the consistent view of the High Court to set aside orders passed against deceased individuals and remit the cases for fresh orders. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the assessment orders being passed against a deceased person. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent on this specific point.