2025 (1) TMI 712 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order issued in the name of a deceased person - impugned order has been made in the name of a dead person - HELD THAT - This Court is conscious of the fact that normally jurisdiction under Article 226 would not be entertained when there is an alternate remedy, however the same is not an absolute bar but is a self imposed restriction and has exceptions carved out to the above rule, one such exception is where the order is without jurisdiction. The assessment made in the name of dead person has been held to be a nullity and would thus fall within the exception to the rule of alternate remedy. The impugned order is set aside - Petition disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether an assessment order issued in the name of a deceased person is valid under the law.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.
The appropriate legal procedure for tax authorities to follow when the taxpayer is deceased.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Assessment Order Issued in the Name of a Deceased Person

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered Section 62 of the CGST Act, which pertains to assessment orders. The precedent set in the case of R.Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India established that orders against deceased persons are non-est (null and void).
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reiterated that any legal order issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity. This principle is grounded in the logic that a deceased person cannot be subject to legal obligations or proceedings.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner provided a death certificate proving that the individual in whose name the assessment was made had died prior to the issuance of the order.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the precedent from R.Unnikrishnan, confirming that the assessment order was void since it was issued posthumously.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the order was appealable and thus the writ petition should not be entertained. However, the court noted that orders without jurisdiction are exceptions to the rule of alternate remedies.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the assessment order was invalid and set it aside, emphasizing the need for the tax authorities to proceed against the legal heirs if necessary.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the Writ Petition

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced the principle that typically, jurisdiction under Article 226 is not exercised when an alternative remedy exists, except in cases where the order is without jurisdiction.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court recognized that while alternative remedies are generally preferred, an order made without jurisdiction falls within an exception to this rule.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the lack of jurisdiction due to the order being made in the name of a deceased person.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the exception to the rule of alternate remedies, thereby justifying the maintainability of the writ petition.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' argument regarding the appealability of the order was dismissed due to the jurisdictional issue.
Conclusions: The writ petition was deemed maintainable, and the court proceeded to quash the impugned order.

Issue 3: Procedure for Tax Authorities When Taxpayer is Deceased

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referred to the legal provisions allowing proceedings against legal heirs under certain circumstances.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized the need for the tax authorities to issue notices to legal heirs when the original taxpayer is deceased.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court acknowledged the respondents' request for permission to issue a new notice to the legal heirs.
Application of Law to Facts: The court granted the respondents the liberty to proceed against the legal heirs by issuing a common notice.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the need for tax recovery with the procedural fairness owed to the legal heirs.
Conclusions: The court allowed the respondents to reinitiate proceedings by notifying the legal heirs within a specified timeframe.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The assessment made in the name of dead person has been held to be a nullity and would thus fall within the exception to the rule of alternate remedy."
Core Principles Established: An assessment order issued in the name of a deceased person is void; jurisdictional issues allow for the bypassing of alternate remedies; and legal heirs should be notified for proceedings to continue.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The impugned order was set aside due to its issuance in the name of a deceased person. The writ petition was maintained despite the availability of an alternative remedy, and the respondents were granted permission to issue a new notice to the legal heirs.

← Previous Next →