Demands Against Dead Persons Are Void: Notice to Legal Heirs is Mandatory

The Legal Issue

The central legal question is whether an adjudication order passed under Section 73 against a deceased proprietor is valid, and whether tax liability can be fastened upon a legal heir without first issuing them a formal Show Cause Notice (SCN) and providing an opportunity to be heard.

Facts Of Case

The Proceeding: The GST Department initiated proceedings and issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the name of a sole proprietor who had already passed away.
The Order: Despite the proprietor’s death and the subsequent cancellation of the firm’s registration, the Department passed an adjudication order under Section 73 in the name of the deceased person.
The Demand: Following the order, the Department sought to recover the determined tax, interest, and penalty from the legal heir of the deceased proprietor.
The Contention: The legal heir challenged the order, arguing that the Department was aware of the death and that passing an order against a dead person is a fundamental violation of the law and natural justice.

The Decision

The Allahabad High Court (2026) quashed the demand and set aside the order, ruling in favour of the assessee:

Void Ab Initio: The Court held that any proceeding conducted and concluded against a dead person is “void ab initio” (null from the beginning). A dead person cannot defend themselves, and the law does not recognize an order passed against a non-existent entity.
Mandatory Procedure (Section 93): Under Section 93 of the CGST Act, if a person liable to pay tax dies, the “person” to be proceeded against is the legal representative.
Sine Qua Non: Issuing a fresh SCN to the legal heir is a sine qua non (an indispensable condition). The Department must allow the legal representative to file a response and represent the estate of the deceased before any determination of liability occurs.
Knowledge of Death: Since the registration had been cancelled due to death, the Department had no excuse for failing to implead the legal heirs in the adjudication process.

Key Takeaways

Notice is Jurisdictional: If you are a legal heir, the Department cannot simply “forward” a deceased person’s tax bill to you. They must start the adjudication process fresh by serving you a notice in your capacity as a legal representative.
Estate Limitation: Under Section 93, the liability of a legal heir is generally limited to the value of the assets/estate inherited from the deceased. Personal assets of the heir cannot be attached for the deceased’s GST dues.
Immediate Action: If an order is received in the name of a deceased family member, it should be challenged immediately on jurisdictional grounds. Such orders are technically “nullities” and cannot be enforced.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Rajvanti Devi

State of U.P.^*

Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ.

WRIT TAX No. 142 of 2026

JANUARY 29, 2026

Mudit Agarwal for the Petitioner.

ORDER

1. This petition is directed against order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein a demand of Rs.6,43,569.58/- has been raised in the name of Virendra Kumar Maurya.

2. The petitioner Rajvanti Devi, wife of deceased Virendra Kumar Maurya has filed the petition inter alia with the submissions that Virendra Kumar Maurya had died on 20.05.2021. Whereafter a show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 was issued in the name of deceased Virendra Kumar Maurya under Section 73 of the Act. However, as the same was uploaded on the portal, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have accessed the said portal, the show cause notice remained unanswered which resulted in passing of the order dated 28.02.2025 raising demand against the deceased.

3. Submissions have been made that once the Department was well aware of the fact that the proprietor of the firm has already died and the registration of the firm has already been cancelled, there was no occasion for passing the order in the name of the deceased and as the proceedings have been conducted in the name of the deceased, the same are void ab initio and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned with the aid of provisions of Section 93 of the Act. Submissions have been made that under the provisions of Section 93, the recovery can be made from the legal representatives even after the determination has been made after the death of the proprietor of the firm.

5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Undisputed facts are that the show cause notice, reminders and determination of tax have been made after the death of the proprietor of the firm. Provisions of Section 93 of the Act, insofar as relevant, reads as under:

“93. Special provisions regarding liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in certain cases:

(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), where a person, liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act, dies, then –

(a) if a business carried on by the person is continued after his death by his legal representative or any other person, such legal representative or other person, shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act; and

(b) if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after his death, his legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act,

whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined before his death but has remained unpaid or is determined after his death.”

7. A perusal of the above provision would reveal that the same only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the business is continued after the death, by the legal representative or where the business is discontinued, however, the provision does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and the said provision cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative.

8. Once the provision deals with the liability of a legal representative on account of death of the proprietor of the firm, it is sine qua non that the legal representative is issued a show cause notice and after seeking response from the legal representative, the determination should take place.

9. In view thereof, the determination made in the present case wherein the show cause notice was issued and the determination was made against the dead person without issuing notice to the legal representative, cannot be sustained.

10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The respondents would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.