Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sunil Thampy Nair, challenged an order dated 22 December 2023 raising a demand of Rs.80,62,516 against his wife, Hemlata, who had unfortunately expired on 29 December 2018 — nearly five years before the order was passed under the CGST Act, 2017. A consequential recovery order in Form GST DRC-16 dated 30 July 2024 had also been issued. The petitioner, along with his son and minor daughter, were the deceased's legal representatives, and Hemlata was found to be the sole owner of certain immovable property that had not yet been transferred to the legal heirs.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST demand order and consequential recovery proceedings passed against a person who had died before the order was made are valid.
  2. What procedure and safeguards should govern the department's proceeding afresh against the legal representatives under Section 93 of the CGST Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order was a nullity since it was passed against a person who had already died more than five years earlier, and could not be sustained on this short ground alone.
  • The petitioner disclosed, by affidavit, the legal representatives of the deceased and the immovable property she had owned, undertaking not to deal with that property pending fresh proceedings.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State's counsel accepted that fresh proceedings would need to be initiated against the legal representatives under Section 93 of the CGST Act, and undertook to issue a show cause notice within four weeks and dispose of it within six months, following principles of natural justice.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that an order raising a demand against a person who had died before the order was passed is a nullity and must be set aside on this short ground; however, since Section 93 of the CGST Act entitles the department to proceed against the legal representatives of a deceased taxable person, it directed the petitioner to disclose the legal representatives and the deceased's assets by affidavit.
  • The Court set aside the impugned demand order dated 22 December 2023 and the consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated 30 July 2024, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh against the disclosed legal representatives under Section 93, subject to issuing a fresh show cause notice within four weeks, deciding it within six months following natural justice, and serving notice at the disclosed email address.
  • The legal representatives undertook not to sell, transfer or deal with the deceased's immovable property until the fresh proceedings are concluded, and the Court left all contentions of both parties open.

Important Clarification

  • A GST demand order passed against a person who had already died before the order date is void ab initio and must be quashed as a nullity, regardless of the merits of the underlying tax dispute.
  • Section 93 of the CGST Act permits the department to proceed afresh against the legal representatives of a deceased taxable person, but such fresh proceedings require a proper show cause notice, adherence to natural justice, and are typically accompanied by interim safeguards preventing disposal of the deceased's estate pending adjudication.

Sections Involved

  • Section 93, CGST Act, 2017 – liability of legal representatives to pay tax dues of a deceased taxable person out of the estate.
  • Form GST DRC-16, CGST Rules, 2017 – notice for attachment/sale of property for recovery of dues.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee/legal representatives on the nullity point — the order against the deceased and consequential attachment were set aside, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh under Section 93 with safeguards.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Bombay; WRIT PETITION NO.18019 OF 2024; Coram: Hon'ble M.S. Sonak and Hon'ble Jitendra Jain, JJ.; Date: 14.07.2025.

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.