1 2025:CGHC:51009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 11 of 2024 1 - Smt. Pratibha Rajput Legal Heir Of Late Devendra Singh Rajput Proprietor Shashi Corporation Aged About 38 Years R/o H.No. 222, Saraswati Vihar, Near Sahu Atta Chakki, Near Talab, Near Changorabhata, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax-Gst, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Rapur Circle 01/raipur-1, Raipur Division-1, Chhattisgarh Office Of Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Raipur Circle 01, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner State Tax, Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Excise Officer Of The Principal Commissioner Central Gst And Central Excise Commissionerate, Cgst Bhawan, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Opposite Pujari Park, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey and Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.10.16 17:20:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that by filing instant petition, the petitioner has challenged impugned assessment order (Annexure P/1) dated 10.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 73 of Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth, “Act 2017”). The impugned assessment order has been passed pertaining to the firm of which late Devendra Singh Rajput, husband of the petitioner was sole proprietor, who died on 21.04.2021 (Death Certificate Annexure P/4). He further submits that since aforesaid order has been passed after death of husband of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the husband of the petitioner, therefore, impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality, as it has been passed against the dead person, hence, he prays that impugned order may be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that petitioner Smt. Pratibha Rajput is wife of late Devendra Singh Rajput, therefore, if notice would have served, then she will represent the firm on behalf of her late husband. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 3 while opposing the contention made by learned counsel for the 3 petitioner would submit that there is no necessity provided in the Act, 2017 to serve notice to the legal heirs of the deceased proprietor. 5. Though, it was contended by counsel for the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 3 that notice was sent to petitioner’s husband/deceased, which was earlier served to him and again reminder notice was sent, which was not responded by him. 6. Having considered aforesaid facts, the fact remains that the impugned assessment order came to be passed against dead person, which is non-est in law and hence, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said impugned assessment order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is set-aside. 7. In view of above contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed to the respondent No.2, to issue fresh notice to the petitioner on her address as given in the instant petition, thereafter, the respondent may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. With aforesaid observations/directions, this petition stands disposed of. 9. Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi