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

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders, dated December 19, 2024, and December 20, 2024, were invalid and set them aside. The Court reasoned that the proprietor, Gottipati Siva Prasad, had died on September 29, 2023, which was prior to the passing of these orders. It is a settled legal position that an order passed against a deceased person has no legal efficacy. The Court relied on its previous decisions in W.P. No. 6029 of 2025 and W.P. No. 21466 of 2026, which established that assessments and proceedings can only be initiated against living persons. While acknowledging that dues of a deceased person can be recovered from the business or estate under Section 93 of the GST Act, the Court found that the assessment proceedings must involve the legal representative. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders. The respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and proceed with the assessment after providing her with due opportunity of hearing. All consequential proceedings were revoked, and the period from the date of the impugned orders to 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, Gottipati Siva Prasad, who passed away on September 29, 2023. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, issued a show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) dated March 15, 2024, and an order under Section 73 (Form GST DRC-07) dated December 20, 2024, for the tax period 2021-22, both in the name of the deceased proprietor. A demand notice (Form GST DRC-16) dated September 15, 2026, was also issued. The petitioner, a homemaker, was unaware of these proceedings as her husband managed the business. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash these notices and orders, arguing they were passed against a deceased person and were therefore invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders and consequential proceedings issued in the name of a deceased person are legally valid and enforceable under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders, including the show cause notice, assessment order, and demand notice, were passed against a deceased person, rendering them non-est in law and without legal efficacy. She relied on a coordinate bench decision in W.P. No. 6029 of 2025 and a decision of the present bench in W.P. No. 21466 of 2026, arguing that proceedings against a dead person are invalid. The petitioner also stated she had not inherited any interest from the proprietary concern. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal and had directly approached the High Court. Therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.