Deepali Sharma Legal Heir Of Late Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Connaught Place , Delhi And Anr.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 is set aside. The Court found that the order was passed against a dead person, Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma, who had died before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The Court acknowledged that the Adjudicating Authority was aware of this fact. The reasoning was primarily based on the violation of principles of natural justice, as a notice and order cannot be validly issued to a deceased individual. The ratio decidendi is that proceedings under the GST law, like any other legal proceedings, must be initiated and continued against living persons or their legal representatives. The Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to approach the Assessing Authority for issuance of a fresh notice and to proceed in accordance with law. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Deepali Sharma, legal heir of late Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2025. This order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Connaught Place, Delhi, pursuant to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 29.05.2025. The critical fact is that the SCN and the subsequent order were issued to Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma, who had unfortunately passed away on 05.05.2025, prior to the issuance of the SCN. The Adjudicating Authority was aware of the death of the assessee but proceeded to pass the order nonetheless.

Key Issues

1. Whether an order passed under the GST regime against a deceased person, without impleading their legal heir, is a nullity in law? This issue turns on the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is void ab initio as it was passed against a dead person. Issuing a notice and passing an order against a deceased individual violates fundamental principles of natural justice, as such a person cannot respond to the notice or defend themselves. The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority was aware of the death and should have either dropped the proceedings or issued a fresh notice to the legal heir. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the fact that the Adjudicating Authority proceeded to pass the order implies a contention that the proceedings could continue despite the death, or that the procedural defect was not fatal.