S Selvi vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court set aside the impugned assessment orders and DRC-07 notices and remitted the cases back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the petitioner's reply dated September 9, 2023, was on the letterhead of Sri Rajeswari Industries, which implied she was carrying on her late husband's business. However, the Court also acknowledged the petitioner's submission that she is not continuing the business and is a septuagenarian. The Court directed the petitioner to file a consolidated reply within 30 days, explaining how Section 93 of the GST enactment is not applicable to her. The respondent is to consider this reply and pass fresh orders within three months, after hearing the petitioner, taking into account the cancellation of registration on September 9, 2023. The Court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, S.Selvi, filed five writ petitions challenging assessment orders and DRC-07 notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22. The petitioner's husband, who operated the business under the name Sri Rajeswari Industries, passed away on December 20, 2022. The petitioner claims she is 71 years old, not continuing the business, and that the notices were sent in the name of her deceased husband. She brought her husband's death to the respondent's knowledge during an audit on October 26, 2023. The respondent contended that the petitioner's reply dated September 9, 2023, was on the letterhead of Sri Rajeswari Industries, implying she was carrying on the business.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders and demand notices issued against the petitioner, as the proprietor of Sri Rajeswari Industries, are valid when the original proprietor (petitioner's husband) is deceased, and the petitioner claims she is not continuing the business. This issue turns on the interpretation of provisions related to business continuity and liability after the proprietor's death under the GST enactments. Petitioner's arguments: The impugned orders are arbitrary and without merit as they are sought to be recovered from the petitioner and the deceased husband, despite the petitioner not continuing the business and being a septuagenarian. The respondent was aware of the husband's death. Revenue's arguments: The petitioner's reply on the letterhead of the proprietary concern implies she was carrying on the business of her deceased husband, thus negating her claim that she is not continuing the business. The submission that the order is non est in law is liable to be quashed.