Invalid Assessment of a Deceased Person under GST and Issuance of Notices After Cancellation of Registration
Summary in Key Points:
- Issue: Whether an assessment order and notices issued after the death of the assessee and cancellation of their GST registration are valid.
- Facts: The proprietor of the assessee-firm passed away, and the firm’s GST registration was cancelled. However, the authorities subsequently issued a show cause notice, reminders, and ultimately passed an assessment order under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The assessee argued that these actions were invalid as they were directed towards a deceased person and a cancelled registration.
- Decision: The High Court held that the assessment order was not sustainable as it was made against a deceased person and after the cancellation of registration. The court set aside the assessment order.
Decision:
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the impugned assessment order. The court emphasized the following:
- Assessment of a Deceased Person: The assessment order was made against a deceased person, which is not permissible under the GST law.
- Cancellation of Registration: The GST registration of the firm was cancelled before the issuance of the show cause notice and the assessment order.
- Invalidity of Notices and Order: The show cause notice, reminders, and the assessment order were all invalid as they were directed towards a deceased person and a cancelled registration.
Important Note: This case clarifies that assessment orders and notices cannot be issued against a deceased person or a cancelled GST registration. Any such actions taken after the death of the assessee or cancellation of registration are invalid and unsustainable. This decision protects the interests of legal heirs and ensures that they are not subjected to invalid assessments or notices.
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Upmanyu Kattha Industries
v.
State of U.P.
Arun Bhansali, CJ.
and Vikas Budhwar, J.
and Vikas Budhwar, J.
WRIT TAX No. 2456 of 2024
JANUARY 9, 2025
Shubham Agrawal for the Petitioner. Ankur Agarwal, S.C. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This petition is directed against order dated 20.09.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for assessment year 2020-21, however, prayer has been made that the respondent No. 2 be directed to issue a fresh notice and give opportunity of personal hearing to the successor proprietor/petitioner and to pass a fresh order thereafter.
2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner-firm had its proprietor Shri Shishir Awasthi, who died on 25.12.2023 and on an application made, the registration with the GST was cancelled on 16.02.2024 with effect from 31.01.2024, however, the notice was issued on 12.02.2024 and reminders were issued on 23.07.2024, 24.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 and ultimately, the ex parte assessment was passed on 20.09.2024.
3. Submissions have been made that once the proprietor had died on 25.12.2023 and the registration was cancelled with effect from 31.01.2024, the show cause notice dated 12.02.2024 could not have been issued to the deceased and the reminders issued on 23.07.2024, 24.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 were equally barred. Further submissions have been made that petitioner, the new proprietor of the firm, wife of the deceased, got a fresh registration on 02.01.2024 with effect from 29.12.2023 and is continuing the same firm.
4. Submissions have been made that the passing of the ex parte order, the liability whereafter essentially would fall on the petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is not justified and therefore, the same be set aside. The petitioner being successor in law as well as proprietor of the firm is prepared to appear before the authorities in response to the show cause notice and they may be directed to take action in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent though submitted that the registration was cancelled on 15.03.2024 and that the petitioner had herself accessed the portal with the same GSTIN on 28.11.2024 and made submission on 16.02.2024 and therefore, it cannot be said that she was unaware of issuance of show cause notice and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
7. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner-firm is a proprietorship firm and its proprietor – Shri Shishir Awasthi had died on 25.12.2023, before the issuance of the show cause notice dated 12.02.2024 and the subsequent reminders, which were also issued, apparently, after the effective date of cancellation of the registration in the name of Shishir Awasthi, i.e., 31.01.2024 and in those circumstances, the assessment essentially has been made against a dead person and therefore, the same could not be sustained. However, as the petitioner has succeeded as an heir as well as a proprietor of the said firm and has prayed for being afforded opportunity of hearing in this regard, the order dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 2 for assessment year 2020-21 is set aside.
8. The respondents may issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner-firm with Mrs. Mallika Awasthi as its proprietor and legal heir of late Shri Shishir Awasthi and take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.