APHC010203452024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 11899/2024 Between: 1. SMT. S. MALLIKA BEGUM,, W/O LATE S. ABDUL RAHIM (PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RAHIMANIYA TRADING CO., ANANTAPURAMU (NOW CLOASED)), OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 20 -158, NAAL BAND, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 515001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT NOW JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, ANANTHAPURAMU, FIRST FLOOR, P.A.R. HEIGHTS, GOOTY ROAD, ANANTAPUR - 515001, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (NOW ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)), ANANTHAPURAMU -1 CIRCLE, P.A.R. HEIGHTS, GOOTY ROAD, ANANTAPUR - 515001, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.11899 of 2024 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the action of the First Respondent in initiating and passing the impugned Ex-Parte Suo Motu Revision Order, vide D.C. Order No. DIN3708112367438 / R.R. No. 4/2023/F1, dated 08-11-2023, for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, against the non-existent business entity of the dead husband of the Petitioner (who died on 03-12-2017 and his business was closed on his death), i.e., against a Dead Person and Non-Existent Business, and trying to recover the tax from the Petitioner, even though the fact of his death was known to the First Respondent, as arbitrary, capricious, mischievous, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently declare the same as void, non-est, not an order in the eye of law, illegal and even on merits not sustainable and consequently set aside the same and declare that it cannot be enforced against the Petitioner, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including collection of tax, interest etc., pursuant to the impugned Ex-Parte Suo-Motu Revision Order passed by the First Respondent vide D.C. Order No. DIN3708112367438 / R.R. No. 4/2023/F1, dated 08-11¬2023, for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.11899 of 2024 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The husband of the petitioner, who is a registered person under the GST Act, had passed away, on 03.12.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner had received an Order, dated 08.11.2023, raising a demand of Rs.3,93,131/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said Order, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings, initiated by the respondent authorities and that the Order had been passed without any opportunity being given to the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that the said order would have to be set aside, on the ground that, the order has been passed against a dead person. 3. Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for continuation of assessment, in relation to certain special situations, including that of proceedings against dead persons. Section 93 (1) would be relevant: “93. Special provisions regarding liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in certain cases.— (1) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where a person, liable to pay tax, interest or penalty under this Act, dies, then–– (a) if a business carried on by the person is continued after his death by his legal representative or any other person, such legal representative or other person, shall be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act; and (b) if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after his death, his legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the 4 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.11899 of 2024 deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty due from such person under this Act, whether such tax, interest or penalty has been determined before his death but has remained unpaid or is determined after his death” 4. In this view of the matter, it would only be appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity to set out her contentions against the proposed demands as such demands would become a liability on the petitioner, subject to the stipulations contained under Section 93 (1). 5. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that notices had been sent to the address given by the husband of the petitioner and as such, the contentions of the petitioner, that she was unaware of the proceedings, cannot be accepted. 6. Even assuming that such notices had been sent in the name of the late husband of the petitioner, the same cannot be treated to be notices served on the petitioner. In any event, in view of the ambiguity as to the service of the notice, it would only be appropriate that the impugned order, dated 08.11.2023, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority for an appropriate decision after due notice is given to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned order, dated 08.11.2023, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing 5 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.11899 of 2024 Authority for appropriate decision, after due notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner. 8. Needless to say, the period from the date of the order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Date:09.07.2025 KPV 6 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.11899 of 2024 321 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No:11899 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 09.07.2025 KPV