2025(05)LCX0561

Prasad Voruganti

Versus

The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

WRIT PETITION NO: 10447/2025 decided on 07-05-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 10447/2025

Between:

Prasad Voruganti                                                                 ...PETITIONER

                                                           AND

The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Taxesi and   ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2.

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The father of the petitioner is a registered person under the GST Act, who had passed away on 06.10.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner received an order of assessment, dated 28.02.2024, raising a demand of Rs.20,13,774/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings, initiated by the respondent authorities and that the order had been passed without any opportunity being given to the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that the said order would have to be set aside on the ground that the order has been passed against a dead person.

3. Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for continuation of assessment, in relation to certain special situations, including that of proceedings against dead persons. Section 93 (1) would be relevant:

“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, 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”

4. In this view of the matter, it would only be appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity to set out his contentions against the proposed demands as such demands would become liability of the petitioner, subject to the stipulations contained under Section 93 (1).

5. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that notices had been sent to the address given by the father of the petitioner and as such, the contentions of the petitioner, that he was unaware of the proceedings, cannot be accepted.

6. Even assuming that such notices had been sent in the name of the late father of the petitioner, the same cannot be treated to be notices served on the petitioner. In any event, in view of the ambiguity as to the service of the notice, it would only be appropriate that the impugned order of assessment, dated 28.02.2024, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority for an appropriate decision after due notice is given to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order, dated 28.02.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Authority for appropriate decision, after due notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner. Needless to say, the period of limitation from the date of the order till the date of receipt of the order by the 1st respondent, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.

_______________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

_______________________
Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 07.05.2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.10447 of 2025
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

07.05.2025