2024 (7) TMI 1109 - HC - GST

Liability of tax of a legal representative - Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not taken over the business of the petitioner s father (Late) Mr.Sathianesan and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed - HELD THAT - It is noticed that as a legal representative, the petitioner may be liable to be taxed in terms of Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. A similar writ petition was also filed by this petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11646 of 2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 and an order came to be passed on 05.06.2024 - the said petition was disposed off holding that ' Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, the Court is of the view that this is a fit case for quashing the impugned order and remitting back the case to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as admittedly the demand pertains to July 2017 to March 2018 and the impugned order has been passed after the death of the petitioner s father. Since the petitioner may be liable to be taxed as legal representative/heir of his father in terms of under Section 93 of the respective GST enactments, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given a proper opportunity to defend the tax liability.' There are no reason to take a different view - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order and demand order regarding deceased father's business liability under CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 and the consequential demand orders dated 26.04.2024 and 01.05.2024, pertaining to the demand due from the petitioner's deceased father's business. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed after the death of the father and claimed to have not taken over the business. The court noted the petitioner's potential liability as a legal representative under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. Referring to a previous writ petition by the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh assessment, emphasizing the petitioner's right to defend the tax liability.

The court directed the respondent to provide a copy of the notice preceding the impugned order to the petitioner within 30 days and instructed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within two months. The respondent was required to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with the law expeditiously, preferably within three months. The court highlighted the importance of the petitioner's cooperation in the process and ensured that the petitioner would have an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings. Given the previous setting aside of an order under similar circumstances for the assessment year in question, the court found no reason to deviate from the decision and allowed the writ petition, with no costs imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.