Smt. T.Leela vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that in view of subsequent developments, a detailed examination of the matter was not necessary. It was brought to the Court's attention that pursuant to an order dated 15.07.2026, a demand notice was issued to the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased taxpayer, and a reply was submitted. The Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax confirmed that the total amount due to the Department had been determined and cleared by the petitioners. A communication on record indicated that the petitioners had paid Rs.30,74,965/- to clear all arrears. Consequently, the Court closed the writ petition, stating there would be no order as to costs. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the original proceedings or the waiver of penalties, as the matter was resolved by the payment of dues.

Facts

The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased sole proprietor, Smt. T. Leela and Smt. S.P. Amulya, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings dated 17.02.2026 and 17.03.2026 issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner STII and Assistant Commissioner STII, Chittoor. They sought to declare these orders arbitrary, illegal, and violative of GST provisions and principles of natural justice, and to waive GST, interest, and penalty. The petitioners claimed to have incurred significant expenses for the sole proprietor's treatment, leading to substantial debts. A subsequent order dated 15.07.2026 led to a demand notice, to which the petitioners replied. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, confirmed that the petitioners had cleared the entire due amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings dated 17.02.2026 and 17.03.2026 issued by the respondents are arbitrary, not in accordance with the GST Act 2017, bad in law, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of tax proceedings and adherence to statutory provisions and natural justice). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioners argued that the proceedings were arbitrary and illegal, not in accordance with the GST Act, and violated principles of natural justice. They also contended that Section 93(1)(A) of the GST Act does not adequately address assessment proceedings for deceased persons. They sought waiver of GST, interest, and penalty due to substantial expenses incurred for the sole proprietor's treatment and resulting debts. Revenue's contentions: The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the total amount due to the Department was determined and subsequently cleared by the petitioners. They presented a communication confirming the clearance of arrears.