Case Title: Anil Kumar (since deceased) through his LRs v. State of Punjab and others
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Petition No.: CWP-5041-2025 (O&M)
Date of Judgment: 21 February 2025
Relevant Sections: Sections 73(9), 73(10), and 93(1)(b) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Category: Input Tax Credit – Recovery Proceedings against Deceased Person
Facts (Paras 1–3)
The petitioner, representing the late Anil Kumar, proprietor of M/s Gauri Shankar Trading Company, challenged a show cause notice dated 19 December 2023 (Form GST DRC-01) and a final order dated 22 April 2024 (Form GST DRC-07) issued under Section 73 of the PGST Act, 2017. The notices alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹9,59,678 for FY 2018-19. Anil Kumar had passed away on 10 May 2020, and his legal heirs had applied for cancellation of GST registration, which was approved effective 30 June 2020. Despite this, proceedings were initiated in his name.
The petitioner argued that notices issued against a deceased person were void ab initio and that proceedings under Section 73(9) were also barred by limitation under Section 73(10). It was also contended that the legal representatives were never given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed.
Questions of Law
-
Whether proceedings initiated under Section 73 against a deceased registered person are legally sustainable.
-
Whether demand raised beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 73(10) is valid.
-
Whether recovery can proceed without notice to the legal representatives under Section 93(1)(b).
Observations (Paras 4–6)
The Court noted that the State’s counsel, upon instructions, conceded that the proceedings were indefensible since they were issued against a deceased individual. The Deputy Advocate General proposed that the matter be remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioner’s counsel agreed to such remand.
Judgment (Paras 7–9)
Accepting the State’s statement, the Court disposed of the writ petition and directed that the impugned show cause notice (Form DRC-01) and recovery order (Form DRC-07) be deemed withdrawn or recalled. The Court ordered that the competent authority re-examine the matter afresh, after granting the petitioner’s legal heirs an opportunity of hearing, and issue a comprehensive, reasoned order. It clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Court | Principle / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Not applicable (no other cases cited in judgment) | — | — |
Between Fine Lines
This decision reiterates that any GST notice or order issued in the name of a deceased taxpayer is void and cannot sustain recovery. Upon the taxpayer’s death, liability, if any, can only be enforced against legal representatives under Section 93(1)(b) after due notice and hearing. The ruling also underscores that time limits under Section 73(10) must be strictly adhered to, preventing delayed or retrospective demands.
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.”
