Sunil Thampy Nair vs State of Maharashtra — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Sunil Thampy Nair vs State of Maharashtra — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed and rule made absolute without costs: the demand order dated 22 December 2023 (Rs. 80,62,516/- against the deceased wife) set aside as a nullity along with the consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated 30 July 2024; liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the disclosed legal representatives under Section 93 CGST through a show cause notice to be issued within 4 weeks and disposed of within 6 months in accordance with law and natural justice; petitioners bound not to alienate the deceased's Ulhasnagar property till then; all contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand order dated 22 December 2023 raised against the petitioner's deceased wife is a nullity liable to be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 22 December 2023 is a nullity because it was made against a dead person, and is therefore required to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the respondents are entitled to proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased.

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 22 December 2023 is set aside with liberty to proceed against the legal representatives.ratio¶¶31
The consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated 30 July 2024 will not survive and is set aside.ratio¶¶33
The Court accepted the petitioners' statements that they will not sell, transfer or otherwise deal with the deceased's immovable properties until the show cause notice is disposed of, and directed the petitioners and respondents to act accordingly.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ.) allowed a writ petition against a demand order dated 22 December 2023 raising Rs. 80,62,516/- against the petitioner's wife Hemlata, who had expired on 29 December 2018. Holding that an order made against a dead person is a nullity, the Court set aside the impugned order and the consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated 30 July 2024. Invoking Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017, liberty was granted to the State to proceed against the disclosed legal representatives (husband Sunil Thampy Nair, son Sahil Sunil Nair, minor daughter Sanya Sunil Nair) upon a show cause notice to be issued within 4 weeks and disposed of within 6 months in accordance with law and after following principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed an affidavit dated 6 January 2025 disclosing the legal representatives and Hemlata's sole immovable property (Shop No.5, Swami Shanti Prakash Society, Ulhasnagar); the petitioners undertook not to sell, transfer or deal with the property until the show cause notice is disposed of, and notices were permitted to be served via the petitioner's e-mail. All contentions were left open; rule made absolute without costs.

1 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx

rsk

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.18019 OF 2024

Sunil Thampy Nair …Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri a/w. Ms. Prathibha Namboodiri, Ms. Pallavi Dabak i/b Mr. Tejal S. Darekar , for the Petitioner..

Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP , for the Respondent-State.

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 14 JULY 2025

PC:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22 December 2023 made against the petitioner’s wife, who had, unfortunately, expired on 29 December 2018. This order raises a demand of Rs. 80,62,516/- on the petitioner’s deceased wife.

The impugned order is a nullity since it is made against a dead person. On this short ground, the same is required to

2 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx

be set aside.

However, under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), the respondents are entitled to proceed against the legal representatives. Accordingly, we had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing legal representatives and the assets of his deceased wife.

The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 6 January 2025 disclosing that his wife, Hemlata, has left behind the following legal representatives:

Sr. No.	Name	Age	Relation with the deceased	Address
1.	Sunil Thampy Nair	55	Husband	A-722/1444, Netaji Tekdi, Sahyadri
2.	Sahil Sunil Nair	24	Son	Nagar, Police Chowki, Ulhasnagar-
3.	Sanya Sunil Nair	15	Daughter	5, Thane-421 005

The petitioner’s affidavit further states that Hemlata was the sole owner of the immovable properties having the address at Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Swami Shanti Prakash Society, Building No. k-512!513, Ulhasnagar 4, District Thane, Maharashtra, 421004.

Even a copy of the agreement indicating Hemlata’s name is enclosed along with this affidavit.

The affidavit also states that apart from these immovable properties, Hemlata did not own any other property. Mr. Namboodiri pointed out that to date, this property continues to be in the name of Hemlata because the same has not been transferred to the legal representatives.

3 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx

Mr. Deolekar states that within 4 weeks from today, a necessary show cause notice will be issued to the legal representatives now indicated. He further states that the show cause notice will be disposed of within 6 months from the date of its service upon the legal representatives, in accordance with law and on its own merits. He adds that principles of natural justice will be followed before disposing of the show cause notice.

The addresses of legal representatives are already disclosed in the affidavit, a copy of which is supplied to Mr Deolekar. In addition, Mr. Namboodiri states that notices can be issued on the following e-mail ID viz., [email protected], the petitioner herein, who will accept the notice on his own behalf and behalf of his son and minor daughter.

Mr. Namboodiri, on instructions, states that until a show cause notice is disposed of within the timeline indicated above, the petitioners will not sell, transfer or otherwise deal with Hemlata’s immovable properties described above.

Mr. Namboodiri, on instructions, states that until a show cause notice is disposed of within the timeline indicated above, the petitioners will not sell, transfer or otherwise deal with Hemlata’s immovable properties described above.

We accept the above statements and direct the petitioners and respondents to act accordingly.

All contentions of all parties are left open.

The impugned order dated 22 December 2023 is set aside with liberty to proceed against the legal representatives

4 11-WP-18019-2024-Fi.docx

in the above terms. Consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated 30 July 2024 will not survive and is set aside.

The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any costs.

All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(Jitendra Jain, J)

(M.S. Sonak, J)