Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M.Prabhu, son and legal heir of the late G.Mayandi, proprietor of M/s Neevi Enterprises, challenged an Order-in-Original No. 07/2025-GST-PDK-1 dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Superintendent of GST & C.Ex, Pudukkottai. The order had been passed in the name of the deceased assessee, G.Mayandi, even though he had already passed away. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to quash the order as illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an order-in-original passed in the name of a deceased proprietor, without impleading the legal heir, is sustainable under the GST Act.
  2. Whether, notwithstanding Section 93 not mandating a fresh notice to a successor, the impugned order should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order was void as it was passed in the name of a person who had already died, without any notice to or participation by the legal heir who succeeded to the business.
  • The order deserved to be quashed and the case remitted for a fresh decision on merits after the legal heir is given an opportunity to respond.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned Standing Counsel for the department took notice for the Superintendent and the State Tax Assistant Commissioner and did not seriously resist a remand.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that although Section 93 of the GST enactment does not require a fresh notice to a person succeeding to the business of a deceased person, it has consistently taken the view of quashing such orders and remitting them for fresh adjudication.
  • The order dated 29.04.2025 was quashed and the case remitted to the first respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, with the petitioner directed to file a reply to the original show cause notice — treating the quashed order as an addendum/corrigendum — within 30 days.
  • The respondent was directed to endeavour to pass final orders within three months of the reply being filed, failing which the petitioner risked losing the benefit of these directions and exposure to recovery.

Important Clarification

  • An order-in-original in GST proceedings cannot be validly passed in the name of a deceased proprietor even where the successor is not statutorily entitled to a fresh notice under Section 93.
  • Courts consistently quash such orders and remit them, directing the successor/legal heir to be heard, rather than treating the proceedings as void ab initio requiring recommencement from the show cause notice stage.
  • Non-compliance with the remand timelines can result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed, exposing the assessee to recovery.

Sections Involved

  • Section 93, CGST Act, 2017 – special provision on liability to pay tax, interest or penalty where the taxable person has died and the business is continued or discontinued by legal representatives.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India – writ jurisdiction invoked for certiorari against the order-in-original.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner (legal heir of the deceased assessee), with the order quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Case No.: W.P.(MD) No.20870 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16141 of 2025. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan. Date of Order: 31st July, 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.