GST show cause notice and demand orders were issued after the death of the firm's then proprietor. The court declared the impugned orders passed against a dead person as non est in law, quashed them, left respondents free to take fresh steps in accordance with law, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.3379 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.3379 of 2025 and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2391 & 2392 of 2025
Raja Structurals rep.by its Proprietor S.P.Karthick S/o.(Late) S.Purushothaman No.41, 4th Greens Road Bharathi Nagar Crawford, Trichy West Tiruchirapalli-620 012 ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State Tax Officer Ponmalai Trichy-620 020
2.The Commercial Tax Officer Ponmalai Trichy-620 020 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Form GST ASMT-13 in Ref.No. 33AFWPP8654E1ZV112023GSTASMT13, dated 28.12.2023 and consequential
_____________ Page 1 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.3379 of 2025
impugned Form GST DRC - 07 in reference No.ZD330224129099J, dated 22.02.2024, passed by the second respondent and quash the same as arbitrary.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.N.Bharathi
For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the first respondent and the consequential order dated 22.02.2024, passed by the second respondent, on the ground that the then proprietor of the petitioner - Firm died on 12.01.2023, however, the show cause notice and the impugned orders came to be issued only after the death of the then proprietor of the petitioner - Firm.
2. The said factual position is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. In the light of the above, the impugned orders are deemed to have been passed against a dead person, which is non est in law and hence, they are liable to be declared as " non est in law".
_____________ Page 2 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.3379 of 2025
4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the first respondent and the consequential order dated 22.02.2024, passed by the second respondent, are declared as " non est in law" and they are quashed. However, it is left open to the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
krk
To: 1.The State Tax Officer, Ponmalai, Trichy-620 020.
2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Ponmalai, Trichy-620 020.
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(MD) No.3379 of 2025
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.3379 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2391 & 2392 of 2025
10.02.2025
_____________ Page 4 of 4_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether GST assessment and demand orders issued after the death of the proprietor are valid.
Whether orders passed against a dead person can be quashed as non est in law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raja Structurals rep.by its Proprietor S.P.Karthick S/o.(Late) S.Purushothaman
The State Tax Officer Ponmalai Trichy-620 020
The Commercial Tax Officer Ponmalai Trichy-620 020
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
