Case Summary
Case Title: Prasad Voruganti v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes & Others
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 10447 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 07.05.2025
Category of Dispute: Assessment order against deceased person – Validity and applicability of Section 93 of CGST Act
Relevant Provision: Section 93 of CGST Act, 2017 (Liability in special circumstances – death of taxable person)
Facts of the case (Paras 1–2)
The petitioner’s father was a registered GST assessee who passed away on 06.10.2021. Despite his death, the tax authorities passed an order of assessment dated 28.02.2024 raising a demand of ₹20,13,774/-. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid since it was issued in the name of his deceased father and without any notice or opportunity of hearing being given to him as the legal heir.
Questions in dispute
-
Whether an assessment order can be sustained when it is issued in the name of a person who has already died?
-
Whether notices allegedly sent to the deceased assessee’s address can be treated as valid service upon the legal heir?
-
How Section 93 of CGST Act governs liability of legal heirs in case of death of a registered taxable person?
Court’s Observations (Paras 3–6)
-
The Court examined Section 93(1) of the CGST Act, which specifically provides that in case of death of a taxable person, liability continues against legal representatives to the extent of the estate.
-
For a continuing business, the legal representative would be liable, while for discontinued business, liability extends only to the estate of the deceased.
-
The Court observed that even if notices had been sent to the registered address, issuing them in the name of a dead person cannot be treated as service upon the legal heir.
-
Since there was ambiguity regarding service of notice, the Court held that principles of natural justice required that the legal heir be given due opportunity before fastening liability.
Judgment (Paras 6–7)
The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority. The Authority was directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner (as legal heir) and give him an opportunity to contest the demand in accordance with Section 93(1). The Court also clarified that the limitation period between the date of impugned order and the date of receipt of the judgment by the Assessing Authority shall be excluded. No costs were imposed.
Case Law References Table
| Case Referred | Court’s View / Verdict |
|---|---|
| Present Case – Prasad Voruganti | Order against deceased is invalid; fresh proceedings must be initiated against legal heirs under Section 93 after proper notice. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment underscores that GST assessments or demands cannot be sustained in the name of a deceased person. Authorities must strictly comply with Section 93 of the CGST Act, ensuring that legal heirs are served notice and given a fair chance to respond. For trade and industry, it is a reminder that liability under GST may extend to estates of deceased taxpayers, but procedural safeguards and due process remain essential.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
