2018 (2) TMI 1563 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of dues from legal heir - whether the SCN is validly issued in the name of Bhootpurva Sainik Security & Detective Service (after death of proprietor) and secondly whether the legal heir of late Mr. U.N. Pandey, Mr. Sashi Bhusan Pandey is liable for the dues, if any of the said Bhootpurva Sanik Security & Detective Service? Held that - Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey, the legal heir of late Mr. U.N. Pandey is not liable for any dues of Bhootpurva Sainik Security & Detective Service, as admittedly show cause notice was issued after the death of his father. So far the dues of the said firm are concerned the Revenue is directed to locate the erstwhile remaining partners of the said firm and enforce recovery from them. From going through the show cause notice it is not evident whether the same is directed to proprietorship or the partnership concerned. Thus, under these circumstances held no proper service accordingly service that there is no proper authority with the Court below to pass the impugned order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice issued after the death of proprietor
2. Liability of legal heir for dues of the firm

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the validity of a show cause notice issued in the name of a security service firm after the death of the proprietor and the liability of the legal heir for any dues. The show cause notice was sent to the assessee, who had provided security services to certain entities, leading to a potential service tax liability. The notice was returned undelivered by the Postal Authority and was pasted at the given address. The appellant failed to respond, resulting in an ex parte order confirming the tax amount and penalties under relevant sections of the Act.

2. Subsequently, the Revenue located the legal heir of the deceased proprietor to recover the dues. The legal heir contended that no service tax was paid by the service receiver, no notice was served on the firm, and there was a delay in communicating the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, prompting the legal heir to file the present appeal. Additional evidence was submitted, including a partnership deed indicating the change in partners of the firm.

3. The Tribunal considered the evidence and held that the legal heir was not liable for the dues of the firm as the show cause notice was issued after the death of the proprietor. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to locate the remaining partners of the firm for recovery. It was observed that the show cause notice did not specify whether it was directed to the proprietorship or the partnership, leading to a lack of proper service and authority for the impugned order. The Tribunal set aside the orders and suggested serving a proper notice on the former partners of the appellant firm, considering the change in partnership structure.

4. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the Misc. Application and Stay Application were disposed of. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper service and authority in issuing show cause notices and highlighted the significance of correctly identifying the legal entity being addressed in legal proceedings.