GST Assessment Passed Against Deceased Proprietor Without

GST Assessment Passed Against Deceased Proprietor Without Personal Hearing Is Void Ab Initio And Non Est In Law

Issue

Whether an assessment order passed under the CGST/APGST Act against a proprietary concern after the death of its sole proprietor, without providing a mandatory personal hearing or issuing notice to the legal representative, is legally sustainable.
Whether an appellate endorsement rejecting a statutory appeal as time-barred can survive when the underlying assessment order itself is void and non est in law.

Facts

M/s S.S.S. Agro Foods was a sole proprietary concern.
The sole proprietor passed away prior to the passing of the assessment order.
The Assessing Authority passed the assessment order against the proprietary concern without issuing notice to the legal heir (the petitioner/widow) or granting a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75 of the Act.
The petitioner stated she was unaware of the GST assessment proceedings initiated against her deceased husband.
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground of being barred by limitation.
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the proceedings, while the Revenue opposed it on the grounds of maintainability and delay in filing the appeal.

Decision

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside both the impugned assessment proceedings and the appellate endorsement.
The Court held that the death certificate established that the sole proprietor had died prior to the passing of the assessment order.
An assessment order passed against a dead person lacks legal efficacy, is void ab initio, and is non est in the eyes of the law.
The assessment order was also vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory mandate of granting an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Since the original assessment order was fundamentally void, the subsequent appellate order rejecting the appeal on the technical ground of limitation could not survive.

Key Takeaways

No Assessment on Deceased Individuals: Tax authorities cannot initiate or finalize assessment proceedings against a deceased sole proprietor. Proceedings must be conducted by involving the legal representative under Section 93 of the CGST Act.
Mandatory Personal Hearing: Failure to grant a personal hearing when contemplating an adverse decision violates Section 75(4) of the CGST/APGST Act and renders the order invalid.
Nullity Eradicate Limitation Defenses: An order that is non est and void ab initio cannot be validated by procedural dismissals on grounds of limitation; appellate rejections of such void orders are equally unsustainable.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

SSS Agro Foods

Assistant Commissioner ST

Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 21466 OF 2026

AUGUST 4, 2026

M V J K Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

ORDER

Ninala Jayasurya, J. – Heard Mr. Anurag Sampath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, who appeared through online and Mr. S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.12.2024 passed against proprietary concern M/s. S.S.S. Agro Foods, the present writ petition is filed.

3. As per the averments made in the affidavit, the husband of the deponent is proprietor of M/s. S.S.S. Agro Foods and he expired on 03.05.2024. Respondent authorities passed impugned adjudication order on 31.01.2024 and since the husband of the petitioner was proprietor looking after the financial activities of the business, passing of assessment order was not within the knowledge of the deponent. Be that as it may.

4. Against the assessment order, statutory appeal was filed, but the same was rejected vide Endorsement dated 28.03.2026 on the premise that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute i.e. , A.P. GST Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that though the factum of death of the proprietor, who was the person looking after the affairs of the business, that deponent is not aware of the proceedings under GST Act, much less, impugned assessment order was urged, the appellate authority has merely rejected the appeal without considering the relevant aspects. That apart, he submits that the impugned proceedings have been passed without affording opportunity, much less, by giving a notice of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Placing reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Baratam Satish v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax 113 GST 719/105 GSTL 273 (Andhra Pradesh)/W.P.No.6029 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025, learned counsel while stating that the deponent of the affidavit i.e., wife of the proprietor of petitioner concern has not inherited any interest out of the proprietary concern, seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

6. Per contra, Mr. S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned order. He submits that as the appeal was filed with a delay, the same was rightly rejected by the appellate authority, therefore, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. Further, the same without availing statutory remedies is not sustainable.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

8. Death certificate dated 01.06.2024 (Ex.P.2) indicates that Balusu Surya Prathap Chowdary purportedly the proprietor of the writ petitioner died on 03.05.2024, i.e. , much prior to passing of the assessment order dated 31.12.2024. It is settled position that an order passed against dead person does not have any legal efficacy. Further, as seen from the impugned proceedings, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without adverting to the relevant statutory provision, more particularly, Section 75(4) of GST Act, which contemplates opportunity of personal hearing before passing assessment orders.

9. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of decision in Baratam Satish (supra), which is applicable to the present facts:-

“6. It is settled law that the assessments and other proceedings can only be initiated against the persons who are living and such proceedings against death person would not be valid. However, the fact remains that, under Section 93 of the GST Act, the dues of the death person can be recovered either from the business he had set up or from his estate. In such circumstances, in the absences of any provision, this Court would have to be hold that the only practicable way of settling the affairs of the death person would be to direct the assessment being carried out by involving either the representative or person carrying on the business of a death person or which such business is not being carried on, by involving the legal representative who be holding the estate of the deceased person.

7. In the said circumstances, since the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased person, being his son, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, dated 25.01.2024, with a direction to carry out a fresh assessment after involving the petitioner herein, by issuing a notice to the petitioner. Needless to say, any recovery that may be initiated, after an Order of assessment, shall be only against the estate of a deceased person and against the petitioner to the extent of the estate of his deceased father, which is available to the petitioner.”

10. In the light of above said decision and the conclusions arrived at supra, the proceedings dated 31.12.2024 are set aside. Rejection Endorsement dated 28.03.2026 emanating from the assessment proceedings is also not sustainable since the original order itself is non est in Law. Therefore, the same is declared invalid.

11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, the 1^st respondent is at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and proceed with the assessment proceedings after giving due opportunity of hearing to the deponent of the affidavit herein Smt. Balusu Bhuvaneswari Devi.

12. Needless to say that the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

13. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.