Gotipati Siva Naga Deepthi vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Held

The Court held that an order passed against a dead person has no legal efficacy. Citing a Co-ordinate Bench decision, the Court noted that while assessments and proceedings can only be initiated against living persons, dues of a deceased person can be recovered from the business or estate. The Court found that the assessment order dated December 19, 2024, was passed after the proprietor's death on September 29, 2023, rendering it invalid. The Court set aside the impugned order. The Court allowed the respondent to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and proceed with fresh assessment proceedings after giving her an opportunity of hearing. Consequential proceedings were revoked, and the period from the order's passing to the order's receipt was excluded for limitation purposes. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Gotipati Siva Naga Deepthi, is the legal heir of the proprietor of M/s. Gottipati Siva Prasad, who expired on September 29, 2023. The respondent authorities passed an adjudication order on December 19, 2024. The petitioner, a homemaker, was unaware of this order as her deceased husband managed the business's financial activities. She contends that she has not inherited any interest in the proprietary concern. The revenue argued that the petitioner should have availed the appellate remedy instead of filing a writ petition. The impugned order was passed against a deceased person, which the petitioner argued is legally invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether an adjudication order passed against a deceased proprietor is legally valid and enforceable, concerning Section 93 of the GST Act? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order passed against her deceased husband is invalid as it was passed after his death. She relied on decisions from a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P No.6029 of 2025 and this Bench in W.P No.21466 of 2026, asserting that proceedings against a dead person are not valid. She also stated that she has not inherited any interest in the business. Revenue's arguments: The respondent revenue argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and directly approached the High Court.