The Dead Can't Be Assessed: GST Proceedings Against a Deceased Person & the Real Reach of Section 93 (CGST Act, 2017)

GST assessments usually assume a simple truth: there's a taxable person, there's a notice, there's a reply (or silence), and then there's an order. But life is messy-and sometimes, so is tax administration.

A recurring (and surprisingly common) situation is when a proprietor dies, yet departmental proceedings continue in the same GSTIN as if nothing happened. Show cause notices are issued, hearings are fixed, and assessment orders are passed-only for the legal heirs to discover that the "taxpayer" against whom the order is made is no longer alive.

This is not a mere technicality. It goes to the root of jurisdiction and validity of proceedings. The recent decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Baratam Satish v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (2025(12)LCX0119) directly deals with an "assessment order passed against a dead person" and explains how Section 93 of the CGST Act operates in such cases.

Why this issue matters under GST

Under GST, most assessment and demand proceedings (especially under Sections 73/74) are person-centric: notice is issued to the "person chargeable with tax," replies are sought, personal hearing is granted, and an order is passed determining tax/interest/penalty. That entire structure presupposes:

If the noticee is deceased, continuing proceedings in the deceased's name is not just harsh-it is typically void because it violates the foundational requirement that proceedings must be against a person who can be heard.

At the same time, the State is not helpless. Tax dues do not automatically evaporate on death. The law provides a mechanism to recover dues from the estate or from those who continue the business. That mechanism is Section 93.

And this is where confusion starts: authorities sometimes treat Section 93 as a blanket permission to proceed against the deceased. That's precisely the mistake courts are correcting.

Section 93 CGST Act: what it says (and what it is designed for)

Section 93(1) of the CGST Act is titled: "Special provisions regarding liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in certain cases." It begins with a carve-out: "Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016…" and then deals with a situation where a person liable to pay tax/interest/penalty dies.

Broadly, Section 93 creates two tracks:

(A) Business is continued after death - Section 93(1)(a)

If the business carried on by the deceased is continued after his death by his legal representative or "any other person," then such legal representative/other person becomes liable to pay tax/interest/penalty due from such person under the Act.

Practical meaning: If you inherit and continue the business, you step into the shoes of the business for liability purposes.

(B) Business is discontinued - Section 93(1)(b)

If the business is discontinued, then the legal representative is liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent the estate is capable of meeting the charge, any tax/interest/penalty due.

Practical meaning: No continuation of business? Then liability is limited to the value of the estate, not personal assets beyond it (subject to facts and other applicable laws).

Crucially, Section 93 clarifies that this applies whether the tax/interest/penalty:

So, the statute anticipates post-death determination. But it does not say that the determination can be done by addressing notices and passing orders in the name of a dead person.

That distinction-liability and recovery vs valid adjudication procedure-is the heart of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court decision: assessment against a dead person is not valid

Facts in brief

In the attached decision, the petitioner (son/legal representative) challenged an assessment order passed against his late father (a registered person). The father had passed away on 21.12.2021. A show cause notice (for July 2017–March 2018) was later issued and assessment proceedings culminated in an order dated 25.01.2024-despite the assessee being deceased.

The Court's core reasoning

The Court noted:

1. It is settled law that assessments and proceedings can be initiated only against living persons; proceedings against a dead person would not be valid.

2. Section 93 primarily provides the method of recovery of dues of a deceased person (from the business if continued; otherwise from the estate), but it does not expressly lay down the manner of conducting assessment proceedings against a dead person.

3. In absence of a specific procedural provision, the practical and legally sound approach is to involve the legal representative/person carrying on the business (or, if business is not carried on, the legal representative holding the estate) and proceed after giving notice to such representative.

Relief granted

The Court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 25.01.2024 and directed a fresh assessment by issuing notice to the petitioner/legal representative. It also clarified that any recovery after such assessment can be made only against the estate of the deceased and against the petitioner only to the extent of the estate available.

This is an important doctrinal point for GST practice: Section 93 supports recovery-but adjudication must still satisfy natural justice and must be directed to a living person who can respond.

Section 93 is not a "procedural bypass" for notice and hearing

A common departmental argument is: "Section 93 says tax can be determined after death; therefore, we can continue proceedings as is." The Court's treatment shows why that is incomplete.

Liability can survive; defective proceedings cannot

Yes, tax liability may survive death-but the procedure to determine that liability must still be lawful. An order passed against a dead person suffers from a basic defect: there is no effective opportunity of being heard. Service itself becomes illusory.

Section 93 is a recovery channel, not a magic wand

Section 93 tells the department from whom and to what extent recovery can be made, depending on whether business is continued or discontinued. It does not authorise:

Courts typically view such orders as nullities because the foundational requirement-valid notice to a living person-fails.

Practical roadmap: how should the department proceed when death is involved?

To avoid litigation (and to avoid passing orders that collapse in writ), a clean process helps:

Step 1: Verify death and obtain basic particulars

If the officer learns (or is informed) that the taxpayer is deceased, record the fact and collect:

Step 2: Identify the correct noticee based on business continuity

Step 3: Issue notice correctly (substitution approach)

Instead of issuing notice to "Mr. X (deceased)," issue to:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court effectively endorses this "involve the legal representative" model for a valid assessment.

Step 4: Provide hearing and pass a reasoned order

The adjudication order should:

Step 5: Recovery must respect the "estate cap"

Even if the demand is confirmed, recovery should be pursued:

This is exactly what the Court clarified: recovery against legal representative is only to the extent of estate.

Key distinctions: proprietor vs partnership vs company

This controversy most sharply arises with sole proprietors because the GST registration is effectively tied to the individual proprietor.

So, the "assessment against a dead person" issue is primarily a natural-person registered taxpayer problem.

How legal representatives should respond: immediate action points

If you are a legal heir/legal representative and you receive a GST notice/order in the deceased's name:

1. Inform the department in writing with proof of death.

2. Object to jurisdiction/validityif the notice/order is issued to the deceased.

3. Request that proceedings be re-issued/continued against the legal representative (as per Section 93 logic and natural justice).

4. If an order is already passed, consider:

○ statutory appeal (where feasible), and/or

○ writ remedy where the order is a nullity for being against a dead person.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the order and directed de novo assessment with notice to the legal representative, offering a practical precedent for relief.

Some unresolved edges (where future litigation may refine the law)

While the principle is clear, a few nuanced questions can still arise:

Even with these edges, the foundational rule stands: adjudication must be against a living, noticeable party.

Conclusion: Section 93 is the bridge for liability-but due process is the road

Section 93 ensures that GST dues do not become unrecoverable merely because a taxpayer dies. But it does not license the department to proceed in a legal vacuum.

The attached ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is a timely reminder that jurisdiction and natural justice are not optional. An assessment order passed against a dead person is not "irregular"-it is fundamentally unsustainable. The correct approach is to involve the legal representative/person continuing the business, issue notice to them, and then proceed to determine dues-followed by recovery strictly within the boundaries that Section 93 permits, especially the cap of the estate when business is discontinued.

In short: GST can pursue dues, but it must do so by speaking to the living-and charging only what the law allows.

Disclaimer: The information given in this article is solely for purpose of understanding the law. It is completely based on the interpretation of the author and cannot be constituted as a legal advise, the author of this article and Lawcrux team is not responsible for any legal issues if arises on the basis of the interpretation given above.