v. Superintendent Central GST and CX
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
M/s. J.S. Enterprisers, through legal heir Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra, challenged section 73 proceedings before the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.13452 of 2026, decided 22 July 2026. Show cause notices and an order-in-original were issued and passed in the name of deceased proprietor Manoranjan Mohapatra despite departmental knowledge of his death and approved non-core amendments to registration showing the legal heir. The Court held adjudication against a dead person is non est and without jurisdiction; section 93 of the CGST Act contemplates liability proceedings against legal representatives, not determination solely in the deceased's name. Participation by a representative did not cure the defect. All impugned SCNs and orders were quashed with liberty to issue fresh notice to the legal heir. Outcome favoured the assessee. Not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.73 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud cases).
- CGST S.93 — Liability in case of death of a taxable person; estate responsibility.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal
Arup Datta (Calcutta High Court, WPA 17892 of 2026, 24 September 2026, Sumita Das De, J.) challenged demand of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 73 and 75 where show cause notice and ex parte adjudication order were uploaded on GST portal without direct intimation. Petitioner filed reply yet received no personal hearing before order-in-original, violating audi alteram partem embedded in Section 75(4) scheme and fair service expectations under Section 169 context. Court quashed impugned adjudication and directed reconsideration after effective hearing with communicated schedule. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. West Bengal portal-service cases increasingly scrutinize ‘additional notices’ tabs and silent ex parte orders. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
GSR Handlooms v. Assistant Commissioner ST
GSR Handlooms, a registered dealer in handloom sarees, challenged a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple tax periods before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 26316 of 2026, 17 September 2026). Under Section 73 of the CGST Act, the Division Bench held that a composite assessment across years is unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the department may initiate separate proceedings for each assessment year. Judgment follows the Andhra Pradesh line on period-specific adjudication in demand matters. Result: in favour of the assessee. For practitioners reviewing DRC-07 orders spanning several FYs, this decision is a further data point within that jurisdiction. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-17, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 26316 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Raj Kumar Borthakur v. Joint Commissioner of Revenue
Raj Kumar Borthakur (WPA No. 464 of 2026) challenged an adjudication order for April 2017 to March 2018 before the High Court of Calcutta on 9 September 2026. The confirmed demand for tax, interest, and penalty exceeded amounts proposed in the show cause notice, which Sections 73 and 75 do not permit without fresh notice on enhanced grounds. The court remanded by treating the impugned order as a new show cause notice and requiring fresh response and adjudication. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Enhanced demands without supplemental SCN remain a common adjudication defect in West Bengal GST practice. CAs should reconcile DRC-01 figures with DRC-07 before advising payment. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO. 464 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST S.73. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Babita Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
Babita Sharma (Calcutta High Court, WPA 1633 of 2026, 9 September 2026, Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) received order under Section 73 passed after summary show cause without personal hearing or communicated date, time and venue—contravening Section 75(4) mandatory hearing framework. Court set aside order directing fresh adjudication. Because writ was belated, relief conditioned on deposit of ten per cent of disputed tax as equitable precondition to remand. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded subject to deposit. Shows courts may impose partial pre-deposit even in natural-justice successes when writ delay exists, alongside full rehearing rights. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. The court left substantive tax merits open for the authority to decide afresh on record.