S.Veereswaran vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

Held

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the respondent against the deceased dealer, M. Senthil Athiban, was unsustainable. The reasoning was that the dealer had passed away prior to the passing of the order, making it a nullity. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's status as the legal representative and his right to represent the deceased. The Court found that the recovery proceedings based on an order against a dead person would prejudice the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that any assessment order passed against a deceased person without impleading or hearing their legal representative is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the notice preceding the impugned order within 30 days, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The respondent was directed to complete the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months, and to hear the petitioner before passing any fresh order.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Veereswaran, is the son of the deceased dealer, M. Senthil Athiban, who operated 'Anantha Stores'. The deceased dealer passed away on July 16, 2020. The respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Aruppukottai Assessment Circle, issued an impugned order dated July 26, 2024, against the deceased person. The petitioner, as the legal representative, sought to quash this order and prevent recovery proceedings, arguing that the order was passed against a dead person and that he, as the legal representative, was entitled to represent the deceased in the proceedings. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order and direct the respondent not to proceed with recovery.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order passed against a deceased person is legally sustainable under the GST enactments? 2. Whether the legal representative of a deceased dealer is entitled to represent the deceased in GST proceedings and to be heard before any adverse order is passed? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the assessment order dated July 26, 2024, was passed against his deceased father, M. Senthil Athiban, who died on July 16, 2020. He contended that as the legal representative, he had the right to represent the deceased in the proceedings and that the order was therefore illegal and without jurisdiction. The recovery proceedings pursuant to this order would impact his rights as the legal representative. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's action of passing an order against a deceased person was the basis of the challenge.