- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1221 WP No. 100653 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100653 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. RUDRAPPA S/O. MADIVALAPPA GARAG CIVIL CONTRACTOR, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY WIFE SMT. KALAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS OLD, S.NO. 25/2B, AT. YAKALASPURA, AT POST. AREMALLAPURA, TQ. RANIBENNUR-581115, DIST. HAVERI-581110, GSTIN 29AHZPG9577E1ZE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, LGSTO-360, RANIBENNUR-581115. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI-110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.03 10:47:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1221 WP No. 100653 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE LIKE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.CTO/360/2A-3B/20-21/73/ORDER FOR THE F.Y. 2020-21, U/S 20 IGST ACT R/S 73(1) OF THE CGST ACT VIDE ANNEXURE- B, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1; ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORIAR OR IN THE LIKE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED SUMMARY OF THE ORDER U/S.73 ACT-2017 FOR THE F.Y.2020-21 IN FORM GST DRC 07, DATED 14.02.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-B1, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 - Commercial Tax Officer, is assailed primarily on the ground that it has been passed against a dead person, namely Sri. Rudrappa, S/o. Madivalappa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by inviting the attention of this Court to the death certificate of Rudrappa S/o Madivalappa (Annexure-A), who passed away on 15.09.2021, submits that the impugned assessment order dated 14.02.2025 having been passed against a dead person, is non est in law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1221 WP No. 100653 of 2026 3. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Ahmedabad in the case of Amit Kumar Sethia (deceased) Vs. State of U.P. and another1 (Amit Kumar Sethia), wherein it has been categorically held that any order passed against dead person, without bringing legal representatives on record is nullity and unenforceable in law. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Mrs. Lakshmi Periyaswamy Vs. State Tax Officer2 (Lakshmi Periyaswamy), which reiterates the same principles and holds that assessment proceedings initiated and continued against deceased assessee are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that, under the provisions of the 1 Income Tax Appeal No.917 of 2025 disposed of on 02.04.2025 2 Writ Petition No.34252 of 2024 and connected matters disposed of 26.11.2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1221 WP No. 100653 of 2026 Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘hereinafter referred to as ‘the GST Act’, for short), the tax dues of a deceased person can be recovered from the legal representatives, and therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference. 5. Having considered the rival submission and perusal of the material on record, undisputedly, the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 has been passed in the name of a deceased person, without bringing the legal representatives on record. Law is well settled that an order of adjudication passed in the name of a dead person is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Though it is true that ordinarily this Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy is available, the rule of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar but a self-imposed restriction. Certain exceptions have been carved out to this rule, one such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1221 WP No. 100653 of 2026 exception being where the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 6. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner squarely applies to the present facts. Though section 93 of the GST Act enables recovery of tax dues from the legal heirs, such recovery can only be undertaken after following due process of law by initiating proceedings against the legal representatives. The said provision cannot cure the fundamental defect of passing an order against the dead person. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order of assessment having been passed against a dead person, is a nullity and therefore without jurisdiction, squarely falling within the exception to the rule of alternative remedy. 8. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1221 WP No. 100653 of 2026 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure- B1), passed in the name of Rudrappa S/o. Madivalappa, who is deceased, is hereby set aside. iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondent - authority to issue notice to the legal heirs of the deceased taxpayer, namely Rudrappa S/o. Madivalappa, and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32