IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7357 of 2025. Date of decision: 13.05.2025. V. Eagle Securities …..Petitioner. Versus Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise & anr. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhinav, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General,with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr.Sushant Keprate,Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge(Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following relief: (A) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned orders dated 04.02.2025 which have been passed against the deceased person holding the same to be illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:13963 ) 2. Looking to the nature of the dispute and the order,we propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to advert to the merits of the case, suffice it to say, that the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 digitally signed on 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) has admittedly been passed against a dead person i.e Sanjeev Shyam, who was the sole proprietor of M/s V. Eagle Securities Services and he died prior to the issuance of notice dated 14.03.2023, and this fact has otherwise been duly brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority in the reply that was filed by the legal heir of Sanjeev Shyam vide Annexure P-5. 3. Despite the factum of death having been brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority, it still proceeded to pass the order which reflects upon the sheer ignorance of law exhibited on the part of the Assessing Officer or upon his pre-determined mind to pass the order even against a dead person which,order to his very knowledge is a nulity in the eyes of law. 4. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order (Annexure-P6) in its entirety, leaving all questions of law and facts open. Ordered accordingly, However, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that these proceedings can not be assigned and conducted by the Officer, 3 ( 2025:HHC:13963 ) who passed the impugned order and therefore direct that the proceedings shall be assigned to some other independent officer. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of so also the pending application, if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge May 13, 2025(veena)