Facts of the Case

M/S Shiv Dularey Gupta, a sole proprietorship, faced scrutiny of returns for April 2019 to March 2020 after the proprietor, Shiv Dularey Gupta, had passed away on 24.08.2021. A notice under Section 61 was uploaded on 04.11.2023, followed by a notice under Section 73(1) on 26.12.2023 — again placed only on the 'Additional Notices' tab, without any date, time or venue for personal hearing. An adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 imposed a tax liability with interest and penalty totalling Rs.52,01,440/-. The legal representative, Suresh Kumar (the deceased's son), sought quashing of the order, contending there was nobody to monitor the portal after his father's death; however, the Department's instructions revealed that Suresh Kumar had himself continued to file returns on the portal until 11.11.2025 without informing the Department of the proprietor's death.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an adjudication order passed against a deceased sole proprietor's firm, where the legal representative continued to operate the GST portal without disclosing the death, can be challenged on the ground of non-service of notice.
  2. Whether the absence of a specified personal-hearing date, time and venue in the DRC-01 summary — a recurring departmental lapse — independently vitiates the order despite the availability of an alternate remedy.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Since the sole proprietor had died on 28.04.2021, the firm ceased to exist and there was nobody to access the portal where notices under Sections 61 and 73 were published, particularly since they appeared only under the 'Additional Notices' tab.
  • The notice under Section 73(1) did not indicate the place, time or date of personal hearing, contrary to settled law and departmental circulars.
  • A personal hearing ought to be granted to the legal representative, Suresh Kumar, before any liability is finally fastened.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State Respondent, on instructions, stated that the proprietorship firm continued to operate even after the proprietor's death, as his son Suresh Kumar continued to upload returns on the portal until 11.11.2025 without informing the Department of the death.
  • Since the portal was being actively accessed by Suresh Kumar, he had full notice of the orders passed under Sections 61 and 73 of the Act, and a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 was available.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that, since the son had continued operating the portal without disclosing the proprietor's death, he had full notice of the proceedings and could not claim ignorance to invalidate the order.
  • The Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the petitioner approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act, rather than quashing the order outright.
  • However, the Court separately and pointedly observed that it was repeatedly encountering Section 73 notices where the date, time and place of personal hearing were not mentioned despite settled law and a departmental circular requiring this, and directed that the concerned Commercial Tax Officer be sent for training for three months and not be assigned any adjudicatory role during that period.

Important Clarification

  • A legal representative who continues to actively operate a deceased proprietor's GST portal login without informing the Department of the death cannot later claim lack of notice of proceedings conducted through that very portal.
  • Beyond deciding the individual case, the Allahabad High Court has begun using specific administrative directions — including mandating retraining of the erring officer — to address the recurring systemic lapse of GST orders omitting the personal hearing date, time and venue.

Sections Involved

  • Section 61, UPGST Act, 2017 — scrutiny of returns filed by a registered person.
  • Section 73, UPGST Act, 2017 — demand for tax not paid/short paid for reasons other than fraud, the basis of the impugned Rs.52,01,440/- demand.
  • Section 107, UPGST Act, 2017 — statutory appellate remedy, to which the petitioner was relegated.
  • Form GST DRC-01, CGST Rules, 2017 — summary of the show cause notice, whose omission of personal-hearing particulars was specifically flagged.

Decision – In Favour of

The matter is disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the Department on the facts of notice (since the legal heir had actual knowledge), but the Court took independent corrective action against the officer's recurring procedural lapse.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Writ Tax No. 1407 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J. and Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.; Order dated 8 December 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.