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

Held

The Court held that the adjudication order dated December 1, 2024, passed against the deceased proprietor, Gottipati Siva Prasad, is invalid and has no legal efficacy. This is because it is a settled legal position that proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against a deceased person. The Court referred to a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench which stated that assessments and other proceedings can only be initiated against living persons, and proceedings against a deceased person are invalid. However, the Court also noted that under Section 93 of the GST Act, dues of a deceased person can be recovered from the business or his estate. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and proceed with fresh assessment proceedings after giving her an opportunity of hearing. Any recovery would be against the estate of the deceased. The period from the date of the impugned order till the receipt of the Court's order was excluded for limitation purposes.

Facts

The petitioner, Gottipati Siva Naga Deepthi, is the legal heir of the deceased proprietor of M/s. Gottipati Siva Prasad. The proprietor expired on September 29, 2023. The respondent authorities passed an adjudication order on December 1, 2024, which is under challenge. The petitioner, a homemaker, claims the assessment order was not within her knowledge as she did not inherit any interest in the business and was unaware of its closure. The petitioner relies on previous High Court decisions where orders passed against deceased persons were set aside. The respondents argued that the petitioner should have availed the appellate remedy instead of filing a writ petition, making it not maintainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether an adjudication order passed against a deceased person is legally valid and enforceable? (Question of law, concerning principles of natural justice and validity of proceedings against a dead entity). 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available? (Question of law, concerning the scope of writ jurisdiction). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the adjudication order dated December 1, 2024, passed after the death of the proprietor on September 29, 2023, is invalid. She argued that as a homemaker, she was unaware of the proceedings and had not inherited any interest in the business. She relied on a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P No.6029 of 2025 and a decision of this Bench in W.P No.21466 of 2026, which held that proceedings against a deceased person are invalid. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and approached the High Court directly. They sought to sustain the impugned order.