2026:JHHC:16784-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No.3862 of 2026 ----- M/s S.B. Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, having its office at Ganesh Market, Deoghar, District, Deoghar, PIN-814112, through its Authorized representative Monty Kumar, son of Late Shibu Prasad Das, resident of Dasdih, P.O. Sirsa, P.S. Pathral, District-Deoghar. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit Jamshedpur, 2nd Floor Shaurya Trade Centre, 159, Dhalbhum Road, Sakchi, P.O. Sakchi, P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. 2. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise Division, Deoghar Palace, 2nd Floor, V.I.P. Chowk, Court Road, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. S.C., CGST ----- Order No.02 Date: 11.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We issue Rule in this petition. With the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner is a proprietary concern, now represented by Mr. Monty Kumar, son of Late Shibu Prasad Das, Deoghar, Jharkhand. 4. The petitioner states that the sole proprietor of the petitioner- firm was late Shibu Prasad Das, who expired on 15th September, 2020. 5. Mrs Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the respondents were aware that Shibu Prasad Das had expired on 15th September, 2020, an order-in- original dated 23rd January, 2026 was made against him. She further submits that such an order is a nullity and cannot be 2026:JHHC:16784-DB 2 enforced against the representative of the petitioner (Mr Monty Kumar), who is the son of Late Shibu Prasad Das. 6. Mrs Darshana Poddar Mishra placed on record the order dated 24th January, 2025, made in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, in which a similar order-in-original was challenged on the ground that it was made after Shibu Prasad Das had expired. Therein, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court granted a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders. She submits that this order was made after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, who are incidentally the same respondents impleaded in this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an order has been made against a proprietary firm which still survives. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that this factum of death was specifically informed to the department. 8. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that the impugned order-in-original dated 23rd January, 2026, is vulnerable because it was made against a dead person. 9. At this stage, we do not wish to go into the disputed issue of whether there was any specific intimation. However, we cannot ignore the order dated 24th January, 2025, made in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, who are, incidentally, the very same respondents in this petition. 10. This Court, upon recording the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been made against a dead person, 2026:JHHC:16784-DB 3 stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. The respondents surely cannot claim ignorance of the order dated 24th January, 2025, in W.P.(T) No.265 of 2025, which was made after hearing them. Still, after almost a year, i.e., on 23rd January, 2026, the Department has chosen to make yet another order against the very same dead person. 11. The contention 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. 12. For the above reasons, we quash and set aside the order-in- original dated 23rd January, 2026. However, we leave it open to the respondents to take such steps as they may be advised and in accordance with the law to pursue their claims against the petitioner herein. 13. The petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned order-in- original dated 23rd January, 2026 and by granting the respondents the above liberty, which is to be exercised in terms of the law. 14. The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any orders for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 11th June, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 12.06.2026