Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Mrs. Vidya Gupta, wife of the deceased Jagdish Prasad, filed the petition against an order dated 11.06.2024 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act raising a demand of Rs. 85,27,874 in the name of her deceased husband. Jagdish Prasad, proprietor of M/s Avon Steel, had died on 27.04.2021, following which the firm's GST registration was cancelled with effect from 18.08.2021. Notwithstanding the death, a show cause notice dated 02.07.2021 was issued in the name of the deceased under Section 74 of the Act; being uploaded only on the portal, it remained unanswered, resulting in the impugned demand order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether tax determination proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act could validly be conducted and concluded in the name of a person who had already died before the proceedings were initiated.
  2. Whether Section 93 of the GST Act, dealing with liability of legal representatives, authorised such a determination without notice to the legal representative.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Department was well aware that Jagdish Prasad, proprietor of the firm, had died and that the firm's registration had already been cancelled, so there was no occasion to pass an order in the name of the deceased; proceedings conducted in the name of a dead person are void ab initio and the impugned order deserved to be quashed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The impugned order was supported with the aid of Section 93 of the Act, submitting that recovery can be made from the legal representatives even where the determination has been made after the death of the proprietor.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted the undisputed facts: the show cause notice, reminders and determination of tax were all made after the death of the proprietor.
  • Examining Section 93 of the Act, the Court held that this provision only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty where a business is continued or discontinued after the proprietor's death by the legal representative, but does not deal with, and does not authorise, whether a determination itself can be made against a deceased person and recovered from the legal representative.
  • Since the provision fastens liability on the legal representative, it followed as a sine qua non that the legal representative must be issued a show cause notice, and only after seeking a response from the legal representative should the determination take place.
  • As the determination in the present case was made against the dead person, without issuing notice to the legal representative, it could not be sustained; the order dated 11.06.2024 was quashed and set aside, with the respondents left free to take appropriate proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • Section 93 of the GST Act only fixes the substantive liability of a legal representative to pay tax, interest or penalty dues of a deceased proprietor — it does not permit the Department to conduct or conclude the determination proceedings themselves in the name of a person who is already dead, without issuing a fresh show cause notice to, and hearing, the legal representative.
  • Any tax determination made against a deceased person without notice to the legal representative is void ab initio, but this does not bar the Department from initiating fresh, properly-noticed proceedings against the legal representative.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, GST Act, 2017 – provision under which the impugned demand order was passed, held void for having been made against a deceased person.
  • Section 93, GST Act, 2017 – special provision fixing liability of legal representatives to pay tax, interest or penalty of a deceased person, held not to authorise determination against the deceased without notice.

Decision – In Favour of

The petition is allowed in favour of the Assessee. The demand order against the deceased proprietor is quashed, with liberty to the Department to proceed afresh against the legal representative with proper notice.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
  • Case No.: Writ Tax No. 4649 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
  • Date of Order: 17.09.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.