The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Baratam Satish v. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2025, order dated December 24, 2025] held that assessments and other proceedings can only be initiated against persons who are living and that proceedings against a deceased person would not be valid, and that where Section 93 of the CGST Act enables recovery of dues of a deceased person, the only practicable way of settling the affairs of the deceased person is to carry out assessment by involving the legal representative and any recovery can be only against the estate of the deceased to the extent the estate is capable of meeting the charge.
Facts:
Baratam Satish, S/o Late Kameswara Rao Baratam (“the Petitioner”) is the son and legal representative of Late B. Kameswara Rao, who was the registered person under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and who passed away on December 21, 2021. The Petitioner stated that the tax consultant taking care of the affairs of Late B. Kameswara Rao had also expired on March 4, 2023, and that the business of Late B. Kameswara Rao under the name of M/s. Aravinda Enterprises had been closed on February 20, 2023, which closure was approved by the registering authority on April 21, 2023.
The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Vizianagaram Central GST Division, Vizianagaram and others (“the Respondent”) issued a show cause notice dated August 16, 2023 for the period July 2017 to March 2018 proposing to levy certain taxes under the CGST and SGST Acts apart from interest and an amount of Rs. 28,952/- under reverse charge mechanism, and thereafter passed assessment proceedings dated January 25, 2024, described as Order‑in‑Original for the said tax periods under the Act against the deceased person.
The Petitioner contended that the impugned show cause notice dated August 16, 2023 and the consequential Order‑in‑Original dated January 25, 2024 for the tax periods July 2017 to March 2018 under the Act, issued and passed against a deceased person who had passed away on December 21, 2021 as per the Death Certificate dated December 27, 2021, are arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore liable to be declared null and void and set aside.
The Respondent contended that under Section 93 of the GST Act, the dues of a deceased person can be recovered either from the business he had set up, if being carried on by his legal representative or any other person, or from his estate if the business is discontinued, and essentially relied on Section 93 as the provision governing recovery of taxes and other dues payable by a deceased person.
Aggrieved by the issuance of show cause notice and passing of the Order‑in‑Original for the tax periods July 2017 to March 2018 under the Act against a deceased person/non‑existent person and apprehending coercive steps, the Petitioner approached the Court by way of the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring such action as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently set aside/quash the impugned Order‑in‑Original dated January 25, 2024.
Issue:
Whether, in the absence of any specific provision governing assessment proceedings post the death of a registered person, an assessment order for periods under the CGST and SGST Acts can validly be made against a deceased person?
Held:
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the Petitioner is the son of Late B. Kameswara Rao, who was the registered person under the provisions of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, that he passed away on December 21, 2021, that the business under the name of M/s. Aravinda Enterprises had been closed on February 20, 2023 and that such closure had been approved by the registering authority on April 21, 2023, and that thereafter a show cause notice dated August 16, 2023 for the period July 2017 to March 2018 proposing to levy certain taxes under the CGST and SGST Acts apart from interest and reverse charge was issued and assessment proceedings dated January 25, 2024 were passed.
- Observed that, it is settled law that the assessments and other proceedings can only be initiated against the persons who are living and such proceedings against death person would not be valid” and that, however, under Section 93 of the GST Act, the dues of the deceased person can be recovered either from the business he had set up or from his estate, leading to the conclusion that in the absences of any provision, this Court would have to be hold that the only practicable way of settling the affairs of the death person would be to direct the assessment being carried out by involving either the representative or person carrying on the business of a death person or which such business is not being carried on, by involving the legal representative who be holding the estate of the deceased person.
- Held that, in the said circumstances, since the Petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased person, being his son, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, with a direction to carry out a fresh assessment after involving the petitioner herein, by issuing a notice to the petitioner and clarified that needless to say, any recovery that may be initiated, after an Order of assessment, shall be only against the estate of a deceased person and against the petitioner to the extent of the estate of his deceased father, which is available to the Petitioner and disposed of the writ petition.
Our comments:
The Court has stated that Section 93(1) of the GST Act does not deal with the manner in which the assessment proceedings relating to a death person should be carried out and that this provision only provides for the method of recovery of taxes and other dues payable by a death person, clarifying that Section 93(1)(a) provides for recovery from the business if carried on by the legal representative or any other person and Section 93(1)(b) provides for recovery from the estate if the business is discontinued.
Recently in the Allahabad High Court in Sambul Shahid @ Sambal Shahid Legal Heir of Lt. Shahid Faizan Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr., [Writ Tax No. 1428 of 2025 order dated December 9, 2025], after extracting Section 93 of the State GST Act, held that this provision only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty where business is continued or discontinued after death and does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and that it cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative. It is sine qua non that the legal representative is issued a show cause notice and after seeking response from the legal representative, the determination should take place, thereby setting aside determination made against the dead person without issuing notice to the legal representative.
Relevant provisions:
Section 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
“93. Special provisions regarding liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in certain cases –
(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act No. 31 of 2016) , where a person, liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act, dies, then-
(a) if a business carried on by the person is continued after his death by his legal representative or any other person, such legal representative or other person, shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act; and
(b) if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after his death, his legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act, whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined before his death but has remained unpaid or is determined after his death.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act No. 31 of 2016), where a taxable person, liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act, is a Hindu Undivided Family or an association of persons and the property of the Hindu Undivided Family or the association of persons is partitioned amongst the various members or groups of members, then, each member or group of members shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay the tax, interest or penalty due from the taxable person under this Act upto the time of the partition whether such tax, penalty or interest has been determined before partition but has remained unpaid or is determined after the partition.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act No. 31 of 2016), where a taxable person, liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act, is a firm, and the firm is dissolved, then, every person who was a partner shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay the tax, interest or penalty due from the firm under this Act upto the time of dissolution whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined before the dissolution, but has remained unpaid or is determined after dissolution.
(4) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act No. 31 of 2016), where a taxable person liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act,-
(a) is the guardian of a ward on whose behalf the business is carried on by the guardian; or
(b) is a trustee who carries on the business under a trust for a beneficiary, then, if the guardianship or trust is terminated, the ward or the beneficiary shall be liable to pay the tax, interest or penalty due from the taxable person upto the time of the termination of the guardianship or trust, whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined before the termination of guardianship or trust but has remained unpaid or is determined thereafter.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
