GST LogoGST Press

Ramasamy Singaravelan (Deceased) Vs Deputy State Tax Officer

Date: September 25, 2024

Court: High Court

Bench: Madras

Type: Writ Petition

Download

Subject Matter

Ex-parte assessments and subsequent initiation of recovery proceedings against a deceased person are unsustainable

Summary

The case involves two writ petitions that challenge orders relating to GST assessments for different tax periods. The petitioner, S. Sumathi, is the wife of the deceased taxpayer, Ramasamy Singaravelan, who passed away on May 7, 2022. The orders and notices for both petitions were issued in the name of the deceased, leading to a realisation that the petitioner was unaware of these notices until being informed of recovery proceedings by the respondent. The counsel argues that the assessments based on notices sent to a deceased person are invalid and violate the principles of natural justice. - The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the impugned orders were ex parte and void ab initio, resulting from inappropriate notices. Following this, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, allowing the legal heir to respond to the notices. The court mandated a personal hearing to ensure compliance with legal processes before making any further orders, thereby ensuring fairness in the proceedings.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

As the issued involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical in nature, with consent of parties, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. The challenge in Writ Petition No.28496 of 2024 is to the order dated 26.12.2023 along with consequential order dated 26.12.2023 for the tax period 2017-18 and to quash the same.

 2.1      The challenge in Writ Petition No.28499 of 2024 is to the order dated 28.03.2024 and consequential order dated 30.03.2024 for the tax period 2022-23 and quash the same.

3. Mrs. R. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Proprietor of the Firm, viz., Ramasamy Singaravelan had passed away as early as on 07.05.2022, however, all the notices, which culminated in the impugned orders were issued in the name of the said deceased person, hence, the petitioner, viz., S. Sumathi, the wife of the said deceased, is not aware of the same and the petitioner came to know about the impugned orders, only when the respondent intimated through phone call about the initiation of recovery proceedings, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way for present Writ Petitions.

3.1 The learned counsel assailed the impugned orders by contending that the notices issued to a dead person and assessment orders passed based on such notices are void ab initio and liable to be set aside, accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, being the legal heir of the deceased, Ramasamy Singaravelan, viz. wife, would file reply and contest the matter, and hence, sought for appropriate orders.

4. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondent since the petitioner undertook to file reply and contest the issue, the prayer may be considered.

5. I have given due considerations to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. On perusal of records, it is seen that the deceased, viz., Mr. Ramasamy Singaravelan was an assessee on the files of the respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the said person died as early as on 07.05.2022, however, the respondent, who is ignorant of the said fact has been continuously issuing notices in the name of the said deceased person and also passed assessment orders and not stopping with that also proceeded to initiate recovery proceedings. The petitioner came to know about the impugned proceedings only when the same was intimated by the respondent through phone call and on receipt of the recovery notice.

7. Thus, it is crystal clear the impugned orders are ex parte orders, and suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and de hors the same, the notices issued to an assessee, who is no more and assessment orders passed based on such notices are void ab initio and liable to be set aside. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders.

8. Accordingly, this Court passes the following orders:-

i. The orders impugned in both Writ Petition dated 26.12.2023 and 28.03.2024 respectively as well as the consequential orders towards initiation of recovery proceedings dated 26.12.2023 and 30.03.2024 are set aside.

ii. The matters are remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

iii. The petitioner, viz. S.Sumathi, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Ramasamy Singaravelan shall file replies to the DRC-01 Notices dated 27.09.2023 and 07.02.2024, respectively (which were issued in the name of the Proprietary concern) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

iv. On receipt of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice by fixing the date of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner in full, as expeditiously as possible.

9. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.