GST assessment orders and recovery notices issued against a deceased taxpayer are completely legally void.

By | July 15, 2026
0 Comment

GST assessment orders and recovery notices issued against a deceased taxpayer are completely legally void.

GST assessment orders and recovery notices issued against a deceased taxpayer are completely legally void.

Issue

Whether GST show cause notices, assessment orders, and consequential recovery actions (such as bank account freezing) initiated against a deceased proprietor are legally valid, and whether they can be enforced against a legal heir who was entirely unconnected to the business.

Facts

  • The petitioner is the widow and legal heir of the deceased proprietor of M/s Patel Timbers, and she had no active connection with the business.

  • Prior to his death, the proprietor had applied for the cancellation of his GST registration.

  • The GST registration was officially cancelled effective March 31, 2019, with the final payable tax amount recorded as zero.

  • Four years after the cancellation, the tax department issued a Show Cause Notice (Form GST DRC-01), passed an assessment order, and issued a demand notice (Form GST DRC-07) in the name of the deceased proprietor.

  • The petitioner approached the State Tax Officer to seek cancellation of these actions, but the request was declined.

  • The department subsequently initiated recovery actions, including the freezing of the petitioner’s bank accounts.

  • The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, during which the respondents admitted they had been unaware of the taxpayer’s death.

Decision

  • Held, that since the Show Cause Notice and the final assessment order were issued against a dead person, the entire proceedings are fundamentally void and must be quashed.

  • Held, that because the petitioner had no connection with the firm, the impugned orders and all consequential recovery actions—including the freezing of the bank accounts—are set aside.

  • Held, that the writ petition is allowed in favor of the petitioner.

  • Held, that liberty is reserved to the tax department to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heir for any outstanding demands, provided such action is permissible under the law.

Key Takeaways

  • Action Against a Dead Person is Void: A statutory notice or assessment order issued in the name of a deceased individual is a nullity in the eyes of the law. The revenue department cannot assume valid jurisdiction or sustain demands based on proceedings initiated against a deceased taxpayer.

  • Protection for Unconnected Legal Heirs: Legal heirs who have no connection to the business cannot be subjected to sudden recovery measures, such as bank account freezing, arising from void proceedings.

  • Liberty to Refile Legally: Quashing an order issued against a deceased person does not permanently wipe out the tax liability; the department retains the right to initiate fresh, legally compliant proceedings against the legal heirs in accordance with Section 93 of the Act.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Smt. Gulabben Gopaldas Jamvecha
v.
State of Gujarat
A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, JJ.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8307 of 2026
JUNE  23, 2026
D.K. Trivedi for the Petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, AGP for the Respondent.
ORDER
A.S. Supehia, J.- In view of the peculiar set of facts, we are passing the present order in the interest of justice and to address the issue raised in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 72 years roped in the recovery proceedings by the respondent-Department. She is a widow of late shri Gopaldas Jaisukhlal Jamvecha i.e. the tax payer who was proprietor of M/s. Patel Timbers. Pursuant to the application filed by late shri Gopaldas Jamvecha for cancelling his registration under the Goods and Service Tax (GST), the order dated 06.05.2019 was passed by the respondent authorities cancelling the registration w.e.f. 31.03.2019. The determination of amount payable by a person to such cancellations is referred in the said order is “0”. Thereafter, shri Gopaldas Jamvecha passed away on 01.08.2019. After a period of 4 years, the respondents issued Form GST DRC-01 raising outstanding demand of Rs.5,94,928/-. Thereafter on 19.12.2023, the order under section 73 of the State GST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-01 was passed imposing tax aggregating to Rs.6,06,026/-, followed by the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.12.2023.
3. Both the notice and order are passed in the name of a dead person. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner, who is not connected with proprietorship firm, was informed by the respondent Department through telephone that if the amount is deposited under the Amnesty Scheme, the balance demand would stand waived in accordance with the provisions. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner engaged a lawyer and made representation to the State Tax Officer on 03.04.2025 requesting cancellation of the order passed in Form GST DRC-07. Similar representation was made on 12.12.2025. On 25.05.2026, State Tax Officer-04, Unit-84, Junagadh informed the petitioner that the demand of Rs.5,75,814/- could not be cancelled. Such action is challenged by way of this writ petition.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned AGP Ms.Shrimal has submitted that the name of the petitioner, who is a legal heir of late shri Gopaldas Jamvecha, has been updated in the GST portal. She has submitted that the petitioner has also requested the Assistant Commissioner, State GST to grant access to the GST registration so that they can file an appeal against the impugned order.
5. Under the circumstances, since the impugned show-cause notice as well as order has been passed against the dead person, the same are required to be quashed and set aside. We do not find any fault with the any of the parties; the petitioner who is a house wife, senior citizen, was never connected with the functioning of M/s. Patel Timbers and never knew about niceties of the GST regime, whereas the respondents were also unaware about death of the tax payer late shri Gopaldas Jamvecha.
6. In light of the foregoing facts, the impugned orders and subsequent action of the respondents including freezing of bank account are hereby quashed and set aside however, we clarify that it will be open for the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings, if permissible under law, against the petitioner for the outstanding demand. The present writ petition stands allowed.