Adjudication Against a Dead Person is a Nullity; Section 93 Requires Notice to Legal Representative Before Determining Liability

ISSUE

Whether the Revenue department can validly pass an order determining tax/penalty liability against a deceased proprietor without issuing a show cause notice to the legal representative, and whether Section 93 authorizes such determination against a dead person.

FACTS

The Event: The sole proprietor of the business passed away on 26.04.2021.
The Action: Subsequent to the death, the Revenue department initiated demand proceedings under Section 73.
The Error: The determination order was issued in the name of the deceased proprietor. No notice was issued to the petitioner (the legal representative/heir).
Revenue’s Stand: The Department argued that under Section 93, the liability to pay tax falls on the legal representative even if the business is discontinued, justifying the recovery action.
The Challenge: The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that an order passed against a dead person is a nullity in the eyes of the law.

HELD

Scope of Section 93: The Court clarified that while Section 93 casts an obligation on the legal representative to pay the dues of the deceased (whether the business is continued or not), it does not authorize the determination of liability against a dead person.
Procedural Requirement: Issuance of a notice to the legal representative is a sine qua non (an absolute necessity) before any determination of liability can take place. The department must first bring the legal representative on record.
Nullity: An adjudication order passed against a person who is already dead, without notifying the legal heir, is legally unsustainable and void.
Verdict: The Writ Petition was allowed. The impugned order was quashed, with liberty granted to the Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with the law. [In Favour of Assessee]

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Dead Person Rule: It is a settled principle of law (across Income Tax and GST) that you cannot sue or judge a dead person. Any notice or order issued in the name of a deceased individual is void ab initio (invalid from the start).
Section 93 is for Recovery, Not Process: Section 93 ensures that the debt survives the death, but it does not excuse the officer from following the process. The officer must find the heir, serve the notice to them, and then pass the order in the heir’s name (as the representative).
Duty of Heir: If a proprietor dies, the legal heirs should immediately inform the Department (and file for cancellation/transfer of registration) to prevent such procedural messes. However, if the Department ignores this and attacks the deceased, the heirs can get the order quashed.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Sambul Shahid

State of U.P.^*

Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ.

WRIT TAX No. 1425 of 2025

DECEMBER 9, 2025

Harsh Vardhan for the Petitioner.

ORDER

1. This petition is directed against order dated 25.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein a demand of Rs.1,60,356.80/- has been raised in the name of Shahid Faizan Ahmad.

2. The petitioner Sambul Shahid, wife of deceased Shahid Faizan Ahmad has filed the petition inter alia with the submissions that Shahid Faizan Ahmad had died on 26.04.2021. Whereafter a show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 was issued in the name of deceased Shahid Faizan Ahmad 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 25.02.2025 raising demand against the deceased.

3. Submissions have been made that once the Department was well aware of the fact that 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 25.02.2025 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The respondents would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.