Tax Dept Cannot Tax a Dead Person: High Court Quashes Order Issued Against Deceased Proprietor

The Jharkhand High Court held that tax authorities cannot continue proceedings against a deceased person. In a proprietorship concern, the proprietor’s death requires notice to legal representatives. Orders passed against a dead person are void and liable to be quashed, especially when prior judicial directions were ignored.

M/s S.B. Enterprises (petitioner), a proprietorship firm, whose sole proprietor, Shibu Prasad Das, had expired on September 15, 2020. The present writ petition is being represented by the late Shibu’s son, Mr Monty Kumar.

The petitioner claims that the tax authorities were fully aware of Shibu Prasad Das’s expiry. Despite knowing the fact, an order-in-original dated January 23, 2026, was passed addressing him, which is explicitly unfair as per the law. The petitioner’s lawyer submits that “such an order is a nullity and cannot be forced against the representative of the petitioner (Mr Monty Kumar), who is the son of Late Shibu Prasad Das”.

The petitioner also highlighted an order dated January 24, 2025, passed in a writ petition [W.P.(T) No. 265 of 2025], wherein a similar order-in-original was challenged, as it was issued after Shibu Prasad Das had expired. Therein, the honourable high court had quashed the impugned order and granted a stay of all further proceedings. A key point to highlight was that the respondents involved in the aforesaid case are the same impleaded in this petition.

The tax authorities submit that the impugned order was issued to the company, S.B. Enterprises, which is still in existence, and there are no such records that prove that the fact of Shibu’s death was reported to the tax department.

When the court analysed the complete case, it noted that the impugned order was issued against a dead person, and it also considered the ruling delivered in W.P.(T) No. 265 of 2025. The court held that the tax authorities cannot ignore the order dated January 24, 2025, passed after granting them a fair opportunity of hearing. Despite the issuance of this order, the tax authorities chose to issue another order addressing the same dead person.

Consequently, the court held that “the firm continues is neither here nor there. At least, prima facie, this is a case of a proprietary concern. Once the proprietor expires, at least notice should be given to the legal representative if the department wishes to proceed further. This was also not done”. Accordingly, the impugned order-in-original dated January 23, 2026, was quashed.