Orders Against a Dead Person: Validity and Liability of Legal Heirs

The Legal Issue

The core legal question for the Period 2021-22 was whether a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or a final Assessment Order issued in the name of a deceased person is legally valid, and how the liability shifts to the legal heirs under Section 93 of the CGST Act.

Facts of the Case

The Timeline: The Proprietor (the registered taxpayer) passed away on 29.11.2023.
The Action: After the death of the proprietor, the GST Department issued Show Cause Notices (SCNs) for the period 2021-22 in the name of the deceased person.
The Order: The Department proceeded to pass final assessment orders against the dead person.
The Challenge: The Petitioner (a legal heir) filed a writ petition arguing that the entire proceeding was a nullity because it was initiated and concluded against a person who no longer existed in the eyes of the law.

The Decision

The High Court ruled in favour of the assessee (procedurally) and set aside the orders:

Non-est in Law: The Court held that any order passed against a dead person is void ab initio (invalid from the start) and non-est (does not exist) in law. A dead person cannot defend themselves or receive service of notice.
Procedural Requirement: While the tax liability does not vanish upon death, the Department must follow the procedure laid down in Section 93. They must identify the legal heirs and continue the proceedings against them.
Remand for Fresh Adjudication: The Court did not cancel the tax liability itself. Instead, it remanded the case back to the Department.
Undertaking by Heir: Since the Petitioner (legal heir) volunteered to represent the estate, the Court directed the Department to issue fresh notices to the legal heirs and provide them with a fair hearing before passing a new order.

Key Takeaways

Section 93 (Special Cases): Under GST law, if a person liable to pay tax dies, the “legal representative” or “heirs” are liable to pay the tax, interest, or penalty out of the estate of the deceased.
Notice to the Right Person: If a taxpayer passes away, the legal heirs should immediately inform the jurisdictional GST officer and surrender the registration (GST REG-16). This prevents the Department from inadvertently sending notices to a dead person.
Extent of Liability: It is important to note that a legal heir’s liability is generally limited to the value of the estate inherited from the deceased. They are not personally liable beyond what they received as an inheritance.
Strategic Step: If you receive an order in the name of a deceased relative, do not ignore it. While the order is technically invalid, the Department can still attach the bank accounts or property of the deceased. Challenging the order in High Court (as done here) is the correct way to force a fresh, fair hearing.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

A.Sirajudeen

State Tax Officer (FAC)

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P. (MD) Nos. 4477 & 4478 of 2026
W.M.P (MD) Nos. 3745 & 3747 of 2026

FEBRUARY 17, 2026

Sudalai Muthu N. for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 & 18.12.2025 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. By consent of the parties, the main petitions are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, the petitioner’s father, one Abdul Rasheed, passed away on 29.11.2023. However, without considering the same, the show cause notices dated 14.07.2025 & 24.09.2025 were issued for AYs 2021-22 and subsequently, the impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 & 18.12.2025 have also been passed against the petitioner’s father, who is a dead person. Hence, he would contend that the said impugned order, which was passed against a dead person, is non-est in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner, who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased Proprietor, is willing to file reply to the show cause notices dated 14.07.2025 & 24.09.2025 issued by the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders

6. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent confirmed the submissions made by the petitioner and they had fairly admitted that the impugned orders were passed against the petitioner’s father, who is a dead person. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, the petitioner’s father died as early as on 29.11.2023. Thereafter, the show cause notices 14.07.2025 & 24.09.2025 were issued for the AYs 2021-2022 and the impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 and 18.12.2025 respectively were passed by the respondent against the petitioner’s father, who is a dead person.

9. As rightly contended by the petitioner, an order, which was passed against a dead person, is non-est in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Now, the petitioner, who is one of the Legal Heirs of the deceased Proprietor, undertakes to file a reply to the show cause notice on behalf of all the legal heirs. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters back to the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

(i)

The impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 & 18.12.2025 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

(ii)

The petitioner, in his capacity as a legal heir of the deceased, shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents for and on behalf of the other legal heirs also, if any, for the show cause notices dated 14.07.2025 & 24.09.2025, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(iii)

On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

10. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.