Vijayan Sahadevan (Deceased) v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (Appeal No. APL/19/TVP/2026, 21 August 2026), set aside demand proceedings against the estate of Vijayan Sahadevan, a deceased sole proprietor whose GSTIN had been cancelled and business discontinued. Section 93(1)(b) CGST requires notice and inquiry directed to the legal representative, with liability limited to the inherited estate. Section 16 on ITC was also in play in the underlying dispute. The Tribunal held that continuing proceedings only against the deceased, without proper steps against the heir, rendered the order-in-appeal and underlying proceedings unsustainable. Outcome favoured the assessee’s legal representative. Departments must re-initiate against successors within Section 93 limits after death of a registrant. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.93 — Liability in case of death of a taxable person; estate responsibility.
- CGST S.16 — Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit.
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
Gita Rani Pan v. Union of India
The High Court of Calcutta (W.P.A. No. 10402 of 2025, 27 August 2026) set aside fraud-related demand and recovery action where notice and recovery were issued in the name of a deceased sole proprietor. Gita Rani Pan, as legal representative, challenged proceedings under Sections 74 and 93 of the CGST Act. The court held that determination against a person who no longer existed was void ab initio; a show cause notice in such cases must be directed to legal representatives under the post-death liability scheme, not to the deceased taxpayer. Consequent demand and recovery based on the defective notice could not stand. The writ succeeded for the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural prerequisites before invoking extended limitation under Section 74 against an estate. Not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
v. Superintendent Central GST and CX
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.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Clear Secured Service (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Clear Secured Service (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court, WP 23402 of 2026, 1 July 2026, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) had input tax credit reversed following Section 73 show cause tied to supplier whose registration was later cancelled. Assessee produced bank statements, tax invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B reconciliations under Section 16 eligibility principles. Adjudicating authority reversed ITC solely due to supplier cancellation without evaluating documentary proof or granting opportunity to adduce further evidence (Sections 74 and 75 procedural fairness). Order unsustainable; set aside with direction for fresh adjudication considering entire record. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Recipient ITC defences require merit review beyond supplier status changes. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2025, judgment dated 29 September 2026) declined to interfere at the show-cause stage in proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Rules 101 and 142. Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd., a medicine distributor, challenged a show cause notice and the appropriation of amounts deposited during audit, alleging coercion, limitation errors, incorrect computation, and lack of jurisdiction. The bench held that statutory adjudication had already commenced and the notice had not finally determined tax liability. Objections—including whether payment was voluntary—were matters for the adjudicating authority after reply and hearing. Premature writ relief was unwarranted. The outcome favoured the revenue; the assessee was left to pursue its defences in the pending adjudication.