Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court held that the demand-cum-show-cause notice dated November 11, 2019, and the Order-in-Original dated June 25, 2024, were issued and framed against Biswambhar Pradhan, who had expired on January 5, 2022. Citing its own precedent in Smt. Kanakalata Senapati (supra), which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham Vrs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, (2015) 10 SCC 770, the Court found that in the absence of a statutory provision empowering the authority to continue proceedings after the death of the service provider, such proceedings abate. Therefore, the Order-in-Original could not be passed against a dead person. The Court found no scope left but to set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and quash the demand-cum-show-cause notice. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order and notice were quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Pradhan, is the legal heir of the deceased Biswambhar Pradhan. He filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated June 25, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II Division. This order, along with a demand-cum-show-cause notice dated November 11, 2019, pertained to the Financial Year 2014-15 and was issued against the deceased Biswambhar Pradhan. The petitioner sought to quash the order and notice, arguing they were passed against a deceased person, never validly served, and issued beyond the prescribed period. The disputed service tax demand, interest, and penalties amount to Rs.12,19,224/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand-cum-show-cause notice dated November 11, 2019, and the subsequent Order-in-Original dated June 25, 2024, issued against a deceased person (Biswambhar Pradhan) are invalid and without jurisdiction, particularly in light of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the demand-cum-show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original are invalid, inoperative, and without jurisdiction because they were issued and passed against a deceased person. He relied on the case of Smt. Kanakalata Senapati vrs. The Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II Division, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 156. Revenue's contention: The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner is governed by the judgment in Smt. Kanakalata Senapati (supra).