Assessment Order Passed Against Deceased Sole Proprietor Is Null and Void in Law

By | October 8, 2026
0 Comment
Assessment Order Passed Against Deceased Sole Proprietor Is Null and Void in Law
Issue
Whether a GST assessment order passed against a deceased sole proprietor after their death is legally valid and enforceable.
Facts
  • The proprietary concern, M/s. Mithraya Communications, was awarded a work contract on 09.04.2019.
  • During the execution of the contract, the sole proprietor passed away on 18.06.2019.
  • Bills related to the work contract were disbursed during FY 2020–21.
  • Based on these payments, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice and subsequently passed an assessment order dated 20.04.2023 in the name of the deceased sole proprietor.
  • The child of the deceased filed a writ petition challenging the validity and enforceability of the assessment order.
Decision
  • The death certificate confirmed that the sole proprietor passed away on 18.06.2019, well before the issuance of the impugned assessment order.
  • It is a settled principle of law that any order passed against a deceased person is a nullity and possesses no legal efficacy.
  • Consequently, the assessment order dated 20.04.2023 was declared invalid and set aside (In favour of assessee).
  • Liberty was reserved for the Revenue to issue notice to the legal representatives and proceed with fresh assessment in accordance with Section 93 after affording due opportunity of hearing.
Key Takeaways
  1. Orders Against Deceased Are Void Ab Initio: A tax assessment order issued in the name of a deceased individual or sole proprietor lacks legal efficacy and cannot be enforced.
  2. Procedure for Recovery Under Section 93: To assess tax, interest, or penalties after the death of a sole proprietor, tax authorities must serve notice on and initiate proceedings against the legal heirs/representatives as prescribed under Section 93 of the CGST/SGST Act.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gotru Lakshmi Devi
v.
Assistant Commissioner
Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 27669 OF 2026
SEPTEMBER  25, 2026
Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, Counsel for the Petitioner.
ORDER
Ninala Jayasurya, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 impugned order of assessment dated 20.04.2023 against proprietary concern M/s. Mithraya Communications, the present writ petition is filed.
3. As per the averments made in the affidavit, the father of the deponent was proprietor of the said concern and he expired on 18.06.2019 due to critical illness. Respondent authorities passed impugned assessment dated 20.04.2023 against the proprietor, since the father of the petitioner being proprietor was looking after the financial activities of the business, initiation of proceedings by the respondents was not within the knowledge of the deponent. Be that as it may.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father Mr. Gotru Dharmaiah is running proprietary concern by name M/s. Mithraya Communications and on 09.04.2019 a work was awarded, that during the course of execution of the said contract, he died on 18.06.2019. Thereafter bills were paid in the year 2020-21 in respect of the said works and taking the same as basis, the 1st respondent had issued Show-Cause-Notice and passed impugned assessment order against the dead person. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned order. He submits that the writ petition is filed with a delay and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
7. Death certificate dated 02.07.2019 (Ex.P.3) indicates that Gotru Dharmaiah purportedly the proprietor died on 18.06.2019, i.e., much prior to passing of the impugned order dated 20.04.2023. It is settled position that any order passed against a dead person does not have legal efficacy.
8. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of decision in Baratam Satish v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax  113 GST 719/105 GSTL 273 (Andhra Pradesh)/W.P.No.6029 of 2025, 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.”
9. In the light of above said decision and the conclusion arrived at supra, the impugned assessment order dated 20.04.2023 is declared invalid and the same is set-aside.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, the 1st 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. Gotru Lakshmi Devi.
11. In view of setting aside the impugned assessment order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.
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.