Unnikrishnan .R vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that an order passed against a dead person is non-est in law. It was undisputed that the dealer, Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai, had died on 11.10.2017, and the impugned order was passed against him. The Court found that if the petitioner were carrying on the business of the deceased, the department had a remedy under Section 93 of the TNGST Act, 2017. However, it appeared the petitioner was not carrying on the deceased's business. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The Court directed the respondents to issue a common notice to the petitioner, representing the interest of other legal heirs, within 30 days of receiving the order, and thereafter proceed as per law, specifically if the petitioner was carrying on the deceased dealer's business.
Facts
The petitioner, son of the deceased dealer Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai, challenged an order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer. The deceased dealer operated a business under the name 'M/s. Chothi Enterprises' and passed away on 11.10.2017. The impugned order confirmed a demand raised via a Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023, both issued in the name of the deceased dealer. The petitioner contended that the order was non-est in law as it was passed against a dead person and that the legal heirs were not carrying on the deceased's business. The revenue argued that there was no proper intimation of the dealer's death and that notices were issued to the deceased, to which no response was received from the legal heirs.
Key Issues
1. Whether an order passed against a deceased person is legally valid under the TNGST Act, 2017? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that an order passed against a dead person is non-est in law and therefore illegal. The revenue contended that the legal heirs failed to inform them of the dealer's death and did not respond to notices, implying the proceedings were validly initiated. 2. If the order is invalid, what is the appropriate course of action for the revenue to proceed against the legal heirs, if they are carrying on the business? (Question of mixed law and fact). The petitioner asserted they are not carrying on the deceased's business. The revenue suggested the petitioner could file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, with delay condonation.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1), Section 93, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.06.2024 CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11068, 11073 & 11079 of 2024 1.Unnikrishnan R 2.Sujatha R 3.Nalinakshi Amma ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Rajpath Marg, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001. 2.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o.The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600005. 3.The State Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai, The Commercial Tax Building, Kuzhithurai @ Kattuthurai, Kanniyakumari District - 629163. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records _____________ Page No. 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pertaining to the Impugned Order No.GSTIN:33ABBPP2462P1ZF/ 2017-18 dated 29.12.2023 issued by the third respondent, and quashing the same as illegal and consequently directing the second, third and fourth respondents not to pr
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.