2018 (2) TMI 1832 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of SCN issued in the name of Firm after the death of proprietor - Whether the show cause notice is validly issued in the name of Bhootpurva Sainik Security & Detective Service (after death of proprietor)? - 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 is whether 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. Further 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. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice issued in the name of a deceased proprietor.
2. Liability of the legal heir for the dues of the said business.
3. Communication of the Order-in-Original to the legal heir.
4. Additional evidence brought by the legal heir.
5. Proper service of show cause notice to the concerned entity.
6. Authority to pass the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the validity of a show cause notice issued in the name of a deceased proprietor, questioning the liability of the legal heir for the dues of the business. The notice was sent to the assessee providing security services, which was returned undelivered and later pasted at the address. An ex parte order was passed confirming the tax amount and penalties under various sections of the Act.

2. The Revenue attempted to recover the dues from the legal heir of the deceased proprietor. The legal heir filed an appeal stating that no Service Tax was paid by the service receiver and that there was no proper communication of the Order-in-Original. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal by the legal heir.

3. The legal heir filed a miscellaneous application to bring additional evidence on record, including a partnership deed showing the partnership between the late proprietor and other individuals. The partnership was dissolved on the death of a partner, indicating a change in the partnership firm's name and style.

4. The judgment highlighted the lack of proper service of the show cause notice, raising doubts about whether it was directed to a proprietorship or a partnership. The Court held that there was no proper authority to pass the impugned order and directed the Revenue to locate the remaining partners of the firm for recovery.

5. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the legal heir was not liable for the dues of the business as the notice was issued after the death of the proprietor. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Revenue was advised to serve a proper notice on the remaining partners of the firm. The appeal was allowed, and the miscellaneous application and stay application were disposed of accordingly.