Facts of the Case

The petitioner, R. Arul Murugan, is the son of Late A. Ramakrishnan, who died on 14.09.2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The four impugned assessment orders dated 28.12.2023, 22.04.2024, 21.01.2025 and 22.01.2025, and the consequential demand notices in Form GST DRC-16 dated 12.06.2025, had all been passed against the deceased father, who was the registered assessee under the respective GST enactments, even though he had already passed away before some or all of these proceedings were concluded. The petitioner filed four connected writ petitions seeking to quash the orders and restrain recovery.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether GST assessment orders passed against a person who was no longer alive at the relevant time could be sustained.
  2. Whether such orders ought to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh orders after affording the legal heir an opportunity to reply.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned assessment orders and the consequential demand notices in Form GST DRC-16 were passed against the petitioner's father, who had died on 14.09.2021, and were accordingly illegal and without jurisdiction, warranting quashing with a direction for fresh proceedings.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Advocate for the respondent did not seriously resist the consistent line taken by the Court in matters involving assessments framed against deceased persons.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that its consistent view has been to set aside orders passed against a dead person and remit the matter to the authority to pass fresh orders, finding no reason to depart from that position on the facts of this case.
  • All four writ petitions were disposed of by quashing the impugned orders and remitting the matters to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months, subject to the petitioner filing a reply within three months from receipt of the order.
  • The petitioner was directed to treat the earlier show cause notices as still subsisting and to file replies to them as an addendum, with no costs imposed and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Important Clarification

  • A GST assessment order framed in the name of, and against, a person who is deceased is not sustainable and will be set aside by the writ court as a matter of settled and consistent practice, without a detailed merits inquiry into the underlying tax demand.
  • Rather than closing the proceedings altogether, courts typically remit the matter for fresh adjudication, treating the original show cause notice as continuing, so that the legal heir gets a genuine opportunity to respond on the merits within a fixed timeline.

Sections Involved

  • Goods and Services Tax enactments (GSTIN-linked assessments for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21) — the substantive assessments held unsustainable for having been passed against a deceased registered person.
  • Form GST DRC-16 — the consequential demand/recovery notice issued pursuant to the assessment orders.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the Assessee (legal heir); all four impugned orders were quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication on merits after the petitioner files replies to the show cause notices.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No.: W.P.(MD) Nos.17183 to 17186 of 2025 with connected W.M.P.(MD) petitions
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan
Date of Order: 25th June, 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.