Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sri B. Nagendra Reddy, son and legal representative of late B. Hanumantha Reddy, approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati challenging assessment proceedings in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 20.04.2023 and a common appellate order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner (State Taxes), Appellate Authority, Tirupati Division, dismissing appeals for tax periods 2017-18 to 2022-23. The late B. Hanumantha Reddy had been the sole proprietor of M/s. Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill, registered with the 1st respondent, and passed away on 08.08.2020 during critical illness at NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri. Despite this, the Assessment Proceedings dated 20.04.2023 were finalised after affording the petitioner, as legal representative, an opportunity of hearing, but without the authority following the special procedure prescribed for assessment against a deceased person. The petitioner's appeals against the assessment were dismissed by a common order, prompting this writ.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether Assessment Proceedings and consequential demand raised in the name of, or against the business of, a proprietor who died before the assessment order was passed are valid in law.
  2. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals for tax periods 2017-18 to 2022-23 without directing the assessing authority to follow the procedure under Section 93(1)(b) of the GST Act for proceedings against a deceased person's legal representative.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment proceedings dated 20.04.2023, passed against a dead/non-existing person, are not valid in the eye of law.
  • Since the original assessment order itself is non-est, the common appellate order dated 16.04.2026 affirming it is equally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
  • Reliance was placed on orders in W.P. No. 31675 of 2023 (Kali Shankar Enterprises vs Additional Commissioner & Ors.) and W.P. No. 5325 of 2026 & batch (D. Subhasini Devi vs Assistant Commissioner & Ors.), where writ petitions in similar circumstances were entertained and assessment orders set aside.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act (before the Appellate Tribunal) instead of filing the present writ petition.
  • The writ petition, therefore, was not maintainable and deserved dismissal.

Court Order/Findings

  • It was not in dispute that the proprietor of M/s. Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill died on 08.08.2020, before the Assessment Proceedings dated 20.04.2023 were finalised, and that this ground was specifically urged in the grounds of appeal.
  • The Court held that, in these circumstances, the impugned assessment proceedings were not valid in law, and that the Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated this and disposed of the appeals with a direction to the assessing officer to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act for proceedings against a deceased person's estate/legal representative.
  • The common appellate order dated 16.04.2026 was set aside and the matter remanded for orders afresh in terms of Section 93(1)(b) of the GST Act, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; the writ petition was allowed with no costs.

Important Clarification

Where the proprietor of a GST-registered business dies before an assessment order is finalised, the assessing authority must follow the special procedure under Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act for continuing or initiating proceedings against the legal representative, and an assessment/appellate order that ignores this — even if the legal representative was given a hearing — is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh orders in terms of Section 93(1)(b).

Sections Involved

  • Section 93(1)(b), CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes the procedure for continuing/initiating liability and proceedings against the legal representative of a deceased person carrying on business.
  • Section 112, CGST Act, 2017 — provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
  • FORM GST DRC-07 — the summary of the order raising demand, issued under the assessment proceedings.

Decision – In Favour of

This decision is in favour of the Assessee. The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the common appellate order, and remanded the matter for fresh assessment in accordance with Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act, holding that proceedings against a deceased proprietor cannot be sustained without following that special procedure.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19556 of 2026
  • CNR: APHC010356572026
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar
  • Decision Date: 20 July 2026
  • Disposal Nature: Allowed; common appellate order set aside, matter remanded under Section 93(1)(b)

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

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.