Recovery notices against distinct private limited company and unexamined post-death proceedings against legal heirs were quashed.

ORDER

1. The first petitioner is a Private Limited Company, and the second and the third petitioners are the son and wife of late Mr. Rudraswamy B K, who died on 25.05.2023. The first petitioner’s grievance is with the Recovery Notices issued in Form GST DRC-13 for recovery of the amount under the Adjudication Orders passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the CGST/KGST Act’], and the second and the third petitioners’ grievance is with these Adjudication Orders and the Summary of such order in Form GST DRC-07. The details of these Adjudication Orders/ Summary of Orders and the Recovery Notices are as follows.

2. Mr. Chidananda Urs B G, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the third respondent could not have issued Recovery Notices in Form GST DRC-13 [Annexure K and K1] to attach the first petitioner’s bank account because this petitioner is a distinct and a different Entity from M/s. B.K.R. Swamy Security Agencies [a proprietary concern of the deceased Mr. Rudraswamy B K]; and in elaboration, the learned counsel submits the following.

3. Mr. Chidananda Urs B G invites this Court’s attention to the provisions of Section 93 of the CGST/KGST Act as regards the second and third petitioners’ grievance with the Adjudication Orders and the Summary thereof. The learned counsel also submits that this Court may consider that two separate Show Cause Notices are issued for two different issues for the same tax period [April 2021 to March 2022], and that it would be open to these two petitioners to demonstrate that they have not continued the business and that there is no estate that can support the demand.

4. Mr. K. Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the first to fourth respondents, is heard for disposal of the petition. This Court must observe that it remains undisputed that the first petitioner is different and distinct from the proprietary concern constituted by the deceased Mr. Rudraswamy B K, and therefore, the impugned Recovery Notices in Form GST DRC-13 could not have been issued against the first petitioner. Therefore, there must be intervention with these notices on this ground.

5. As regards the second and the third petitioners’ grievance, it is brought to this Court’s notice that upon the demise of Mr. Rudraswamy B K, his family members have reported his demise vide letter dated 28.06.2023, and that when served with Show Cause Notices, they have replied stating that neither the second petitioner nor the third petitioner could be treated as the legal heirs for the purposes of the proceedings under the CGST/KGST Act because the third petitioner is a home maker who is not keeping well and the second petitioner is working in a private sector while also stating that many other legal aspects will have to be examined.

6. It is seen from the impugned Adjudication Orders that whether the proceedings could be sustained because of Section 93(1)(a) or 93(1)(b) of the CGST/KGST Act is not examined and this gives a reason for interference on the ground of failure to consider material circumstances. On the other contention on behalf of the second and third petitioners that two notices for the same tax period, though on different issues, could not have been issued, this Court must opine that this aspect must be left open to be considered with an opportunity to these petitioners to file a detailed response. In the light of the afore, the following.

The petition is allowed on the following terms: