Raja Structurals vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders, dated 28.12.2023 and 22.02.2024, were passed against a deceased proprietor. Consequently, these orders were declared as 'non est in law' (void ab initio) because legal proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against a person who is no longer alive. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the proprietor died on 12.01.2023, and the orders were issued subsequently. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed against a dead person is a nullity. The Court quashed both the impugned order and the consequential order. It also left open the liberty for the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, implying they could initiate fresh proceedings if permissible.

Facts

The petitioner, Raja Structurals, represented by its proprietor S.P. Karthick, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.12.2023 (Form GST ASMT-13) passed by the first respondent, The State Tax Officer, and a consequential order dated 22.02.2024 (Form GST DRC-07) passed by the second respondent, The Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner's primary contention was that the proprietor of the firm had died on 12.01.2023, and the show cause notice and the impugned orders were issued after his death. The respondents, through the learned Government Advocate, did not dispute this factual position.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, issued after the death of the proprietor of the petitioner firm, are legally valid and enforceable under the GST regime? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the orders were passed against a dead person, rendering them non est in law and therefore liable to be quashed. The respondents did not present any arguments against this contention, as they conceded the factual position that the proprietor had passed away prior to the issuance of the notices and orders.