Mr.C.Muthukarthik vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order, dated 17.04.2024, passed against the deceased assessee, S.M.Chandrasekar, was illegal. The Court reasoned that an assessment order cannot be passed against a person who is no longer alive. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent. The petitioner, as the legal representative, was granted 30 days from the date of the order to file a reply to the notices that preceded the impugned order. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that the petitioner shall be heard before any fresh order is passed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, C.Muthukarthik, is a legal heir of the deceased assessee, S.M.Chandrasekar, who passed away on 04.12.2024. The respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaikanal, had issued notices (DRC 01 and DRC 01A) and reminders on 05.03.2024, 12.03.2024, and 03.04.2024, followed by an impugned assessment order dated 17.04.2024 (Form GST DRC-07) for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner sought to quash this order and prevent further recovery proceedings. The writ petition was heard at the admission stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed against a deceased person is legally sustainable, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed against a deceased person and requested an opportunity to file a reply. The respondent did not present any specific arguments on this point, as the Court proceeded to set aside the order based on the petitioner's submission and the factual context.