Vimal Raj VS State Tax Officer

Firstly, the petitioner asserts that no orders can be legally passed against a deceased person under the relevant statute. This argument hinges on the principle that legal actions or orders targeting individuals who are no longer alive are inherently invalid.

Secondly, the petitioner contends that the provisions of Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act were not adhered to in the issuance of the impugned orders. Section 93 of the CGST Act lays down specific procedural requirements that must be followed when making determinations or taking actions under the Act. The petitioner argues that these procedural safeguards were disregarded, rendering the orders unlawful.

Lastly, the petitioner highlights that the first respondent failed to serve the necessary show cause notices prior to issuing the impugned orders. Show cause notices are critical as they provide the affected party an opportunity to present their case or respond to the allegations before any adverse order is made. The absence of such notices, according to the petitioner, constitutes a breach of due process and further undermines the legality of the impugned orders.

In summary, the petitioner’s case rests on the arguments that orders against deceased individuals are invalid, that procedural requirements under the CGST Act were not followed, and that there was a failure to serve the requisite show cause notices, all of which contribute to the illegality and arbitrariness of the impugned orders.

The petitioner in this writ petition argues that the orders identified as Exts.P3 to P3(1) are illegal and arbitrary for several reasons. First, the petitioner claims that no orders can be issued against a deceased person under the relevant statute. Second, they assert that the provisions of Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act were not adhered to in issuing the Exts.P3 series orders. Third, the petitioner alleges that no show cause notices were served by the 1st respondent before issuing these orders. Based on these arguments, the petitioner requests that the Ext.P3 series orders be quashed or invalidated by the court. Consequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

1. To quash the Exts.P3 to P3(1) orders issued by the 1st respondent through a writ of certiorari or another appropriate writ, order, or direction.

2. To grant any other incidental reliefs to the petitioner.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and arbitrariness of the impugned orders, Exts.P3 to P3(1), for several reasons, including that orders cannot be passed against a deceased person under the statute, the provisions of Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act were not followed in issuing Exts.P3 series, and the show cause notices prior to the issuance of Exts.P3 series were not served by the first respondent; the petitioner seeks to have the Ext.P3 series orders quashed or invalidated by the court and has filed this writ petition requesting the court to quash Exts.P3 to P3(1) orders and grant other incidental reliefs, including the costs of the proceedings; the court heard arguments from Smt Meera V Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader; the respondents seek a direction to provide specific instructions to the learned Government Pleader regarding the petitioner’s plea that the assessee covered by the impugned Ext.P3 series of assessment orders, issued in March 2019, had died as early as 27.03.2018, as evidenced by Ext.P2 certificate from the Registrar of Births and Deaths, and the petitioner raises constitutional contentions against passing such an impugned assessment order against a deceased person.

The case presented in the writ petition involves the petitioner challenging the legality and arbitrariness of the orders marked as Exts.P3 to P3(1). The petitioner presents three main contentions:

1. Orders cannot be issued against a deceased individual under the statute.

2. The provisions of Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act were not adhered to in issuing the Exts.P3 series.

3. The necessary show cause notices preceding the Exts.P3 series were not served by the first respondent.

Given these reasons, the petitioner argues that the Ext.P3 series orders should be quashed or invalidated by the Court. The petitioner has filed the writ petition (W.P.(C)) seeking the following reliefs:

1. To annul the orders Exts.P3 to P3(1) issued by the first respondent through a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, orders, or directions.

2. To provide any other incidental reliefs, including the costs of the proceedings.

The case was heard by Smt. Meera V. Menon, the counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Thushara James, the Government Pleader. The respondents were directed to provide specific instructions to the learned Government Pleader regarding the petitioner’s claim that the deceased assessee, covered by the impugned Ext.P3 series of assessment orders dated March 2019, had passed away on 27.03.2018. This fact is substantiated by the Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. The petitioner argues that any assessment order passed against a deceased person is void and must be nullified.

After hearing both sides, it appears that the respondent does not significantly dispute the petitioner’s factual assertion. The petitioner claims that the deceased assessee is the petitioner’s paternal grandfather and that the petitioner’s father, the son of the deceased assessee, had also died on 27.03.2018, as evidenced by the Ext.P2 certificate.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law;

GST Case Law: