9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 711 - HC - GSTValidity of impugned notice and order - notice was issued against the dead person - ex-parte impugned order - Legal representative - HELD THAT - The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax, Division-I, Noida in the impugned order has taken note of the factum of the death of the husband of the petitioner. The impugned order also states that opportunity of personal hearing was accorded and dates were fixed but neither any authorized representative appeared nor any communication was received from the party even though the communication was made by the department on registered address and registered e-mail - the department was required to serve notice upon the petitioner being the legal representative of the deceased before proceeding in the matter. The impugned order nowhere records that notice issued by the department was served upon the petitioner being the legal representative of the deceased assessee. The impugned order dated 27.02.2023 is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax, Division-I, Noida, for decision afresh after affording personnel hearing to the petitioner or to her representative considering the age of the petitioner, which is stated to be 79 years. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax, Division-I, Noida shall not be required to issue fresh notice to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
The challenge to demand cum show cause notice and consequential order regarding tax liability, penalty, and interest under the Finance Act, 1994 and Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2014-15. Summary: The writ petition challenged a demand cum show cause notice and consequential order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-I, Noida, against a Sole Proprietorship Firm run by the deceased husband of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the notice and order were issued against a dead person, as the husband had passed away in 2018, which was duly communicated to the authorities. The petitioner also argued that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded, and the proceedings were initiated after a period of five years from the relevant date, making them illegal. The counsel for the respondents attempted to justify the order, claiming it was against the firm and not the deceased proprietor. However, it was acknowledged that the demise of the sole proprietor was communicated, and no notice was served on the legal representative of the deceased. Upon review, the High Court found that the department failed to serve notice on the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased before proceeding with the matter. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner or her representative. The petitioner, aged 79, was directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner with a certified copy of the court's order. The court allowed the petitioner to file objections and documents supporting her claim, and instructed the Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter expeditiously within two months, adhering strictly to the law. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction for a fresh decision by the Assistant Commissioner after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner or her representative.
|
