Abdul Kaboor vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 was passed against a deceased person and without proper notice to the legal heirs. Consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's application for rectification on 19.02.2025 was also deemed erroneous. The Court set aside the impugned order, finding it to be arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The set-aside order was to be treated as a corrigendum/addendum to the preceding notices. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the notices within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed against a deceased individual without proper notice to legal heirs is void and must be set aside, upholding the principles of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, as the legal heir of the deceased assessee, Mohammed Musthafa Rowther Sabiya Beevi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1. This order was issued pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 18.06.2024 for the Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the assessee passed away on 30.12.2022, and the impugned order was passed against a deceased person without proper notice to the legal heirs. The petitioner's subsequent application for rectification of this order, which was rejected on 19.02.2025, is also under challenge. The petitioner claims they were unaware of the notices and the order until coercive steps were initiated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 12.08.2024, passed against a deceased assessee, is void ab initio and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the issuance of proper notice to the legal heirs, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for rectification on 19.02.2025 was erroneous, given the contention that the original order was passed without proper notice to the legal heirs? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is void ab initio as it was passed against a deceased person without proper notice to the legal heirs. They also contended that their application for rectification was wrongly dismissed without considering the lack of proper notice. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.