Disposed¶29

Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir of Late Devendra Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Taxation – GST

Chhattisgarh HC13 Oct 2025WPT/13/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPT No. 13 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 14/10/2025 by Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi. Keywords: Section 73 Chhattisgarh GST Act 2017; assessment order against deceased proprietor; non-est in law; no opportunity of hearing; notice to legal heir/widow; fresh notice and fresh adjudication; Shashi Corporation; Raipur; set aside assessment; natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order dated 14.11.2022 set aside as non-est; respondent No.2 directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner at her address stated in the petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶29

Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir of Late Devendra… — GST and Indirect Tax | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2025.10.16 17:20:07 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:51007

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPT No. 13 of 2024

¶7

1 - Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir Of Late Devendra Singh Rajput Proprietor Shashi Corporation Aged About 38 Years Resident Of H. No. 222, Saraswati Vihar, Near Sahu Atta Chakki, Near Talab, Near Changorabhata, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax - Gst, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Raipur Circle 01/ Raipur-1, Raipur Division-1, Chhattisgarh , Office Of Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Raipur Circle 01, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Commissioner State Tax, Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Excise Office Of The Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Exicse Commissionerate, Cgst Bhawan, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Opposite Pujari Park, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause title tak	en from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Siddharth Dubey and Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate
For State/Respondents No.1, 2 & 3	: Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate

¶16

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order on Board

14/10/2025

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that by filing instant petition, the petitioner has challenged impugned assessment order (Annexure P/1) dated 14.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 73 of Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth, “Act 2017”). The impugned assessment order has been passed pertaining to the firm of which late Devendra Singh Rajput, husband of the petitioner was sole proprietor, who died on 21.04.2021 (Death Certificate Annexure P/4). He further submits that since aforesaid order has been passed after death of husband of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the husband of the petitioner, therefore, impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality, as it has been passed against the dead person, hence, he prays that impugned order may be set-aside.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that petitioner Smt. Pratibha Rajput is wife of late Devendra Singh Rajput, therefore, if notice would have served, then she will represent the firm on behalf of her late husband.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 3 while opposing the contention made by learned counsel for the

¶24

¶25

petitioner would submit that there is no necessity provided in the Act, 2017 to serve notice to the legal heirs of the deceased proprietor.

¶26

5. Though, it was contended by counsel for the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 3 that notice was sent to petitioner’s husband/deceased before his death, which was not responded by him.

¶27

6. Having considered aforesaid facts, the fact remains that the impugned assessment order came to be passed against dead person, which is non-est in law and hence, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said impugned assessment order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is set-aside.

¶28

7. In view of above contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed to the respondent No.2, to issue fresh notice to the petitioner on her address as given in the instant petition, thereafter, the respondent may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶29

8. With aforesaid observations/directions, this petition stands disposed of.

¶30

9. Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶31

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶32

Ravi Mandavi

Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir of Late Devendra Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir of Late Devendra Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Nishad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Laxmi Amba Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh( Now State of Chhattisgarh)

Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir of Late Devendra Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir of Late Devendra Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prasanna Kumar Naik Vs State of Chhattisgarh