Gollapudi Suseela vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that an order passed against a deceased person has no legal efficacy. The death certificate confirmed the proprietor died on October 29, 2022, prior to the assessment order dated July 24, 2024. The Court referred to a previous decision (W.P No.6029 of 2025) which established that assessments can only be initiated against living persons, but dues of a deceased person can be recovered from their business or estate. In such cases, the assessment should involve the representative or the person carrying on the business, or the legal representative holding the estate. Consequently, the impugned order dated July 24, 2024, was declared invalid and set aside. The Court allowed the writ petition, with the liberty for the first respondent to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and proceed with fresh assessment proceedings after providing a due 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.

Facts

The petitioners, Gollapudi Suseela and M/s Sri Balaji Timber Depot and Saw Mill, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated July 24, 2024, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ongole-II Circle. The petitioner's husband, who was the proprietor of the business, expired on September 29, 2023. The petitioner, a homemaker, claimed the assessment order was not within her knowledge. She stated she had not inherited any interest in the proprietary concern. The respondents, represented by the Commercial Tax Department, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal. The death certificate indicated the proprietor died on October 29, 2022, prior to the assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether an adjudication order passed against a deceased proprietor is legally valid and enforceable, considering Section 93 of the GST Act? 2. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the adjudication order passed against a deceased person is a nullity and has no legal efficacy. She relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P No.6029 of 2025 and a decision of this Bench in W.P No.21466 of 2026, arguing that the assessment should involve the legal representative. The petitioner also stated she had not inherited any interest from the proprietary concern. 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.