Dead Men Don’t Get Notices: High Court Slams GST Officer for Posthumous Assessment:

Dead Men Don’t Get Notices: High Court Slams GST Officer for Posthumous Assessment

Assessment order passed posthumously without involving legal heir quashed for violating natural justice principles.

Violation of Natural Justice: HC Sets Aside GST Assessment Against Dead Taxpayer

authorMeetu KumaridateJun 15, 2025
Last update on Jun 15, 2025
Dead Men Don’t Get Notices: High Court Slams GST Officer for Posthumous Assessment In a recent case, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court challenging a GST assessment order dated 20.08.2024 issued against his late father, who had passed away on 06.05.2021. The order was issued after the assessee’s death in May 2021, and no legal heir or representative had been substituted in the proceedings. The petitioner sought an opportunity to respond to the original show cause notice. The order was against the assessment year 2019–20, which ran from April 2019 to March 2020. As the legal heir, the petitioner asked the court to invalidate the assessment because it had been improperly made against a deceased person and asked for a chance to reply to the previous show cause notice.
High Court Quashes Cancellation of GST Registration, Directs Acceptance of Belated Returns
Issue Raised: Whether an assessment order passed under the GST Act in the name of a deceased person, without notifying or involving the legal heir and without providing an opportunity of hearing to him, is a violation of principles of natural justice.
GST Scam of 26 Cr in Chhattisgarh: Fraudsters Use Dead Persons to Open Fake Firms
High Court’s Decision: The Court held that since the impugned assessment was passed against a dead person, it was invalid and illegal in law. It underlined how important it is to adhere to due process, which includes hearing the heir apparent. Accordingly, the Court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the GST officer for fresh adjudication after giving the petitioner a chance to respond. The officer was instructed to complete the reassessment within three months, and the petitioner was given thirty days to submit a response. Read the full Judgment Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…