In recent years, several High Courts have dealt with cases where GST demand notices were issued in the name of individuals who had already passed away. Despite clear communication to tax authorities about the death of the assessee, proceedings were often continued, raising concerns about legal validity and procedural fairness. Such actions not only disregard the principles of natural justice but also create unnecessary hardship for the legal heirs.

Under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, it is stated that if a taxable person dies, their legal heirs or representatives may be held liable for any pending tax dues, but only in accordance with due process.

This article presents a compilation of High Court rulings on GST demands issued to deceased persons, exploring how different benches have interpreted and enforced the law in such circumstances.

Invalid GST Orders Issued to Deceased Person Set Aside; Fresh Proceedings May Be Initiated Against Legal Heirs (MADRAS HC)

In the case of MunusamyNagabushanam v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (2024), the petitioner, one of the legal heirs of the deceased taxpayer, challenged GSTassessment orders issued after the assessee’s death. The Madras High Court observed that the tax department had issued show cause notices and assessment orders despite clear evidence of the assessee’s death, including a death certificate and a legal heirship certificate.

Since the proceedings were initiated against a deceased person, the court held them to be legally unsustainable. While setting aside the impugned orders, the court clarified that the tax department was at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs following the law.

GST Proceedings Against Deceased Invalid Despite Similar Business Name (KERALA HC)

Another notable decision made by the Kerala HC is in Vikas A Shah v. State Tax Officer (2024), the High Court quashed GST assessment proceedings initiated in the name of the deceased assessee, Vasanti Anil Kumar Shah, who was the mother of the appellant. She was carrying on a proprietorship business under the name “International Agencies,” engaged in the trade of copra and allied oil products. Despite the business name being similar to that of the appellant’s current business, the court noted that both were separate entities and the appellant had not inherited his mother’s business.

The assessment orders, issued after her death, were challenged on the ground that they were void ab initio, as proceedings cannot be continued in the name of a deceased person.

The Court held that mere similarity in business names does not establish legal succession or liability and directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh assessment order, granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard without being bound by previous findings, including limitation objections.

Ex-parte GST Proceedings against Non-Existent Person Violation of Natural Justice (MADRAS HC)

The Madras High Court quashed GST recovery proceedings and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased individual, Ramasamy Singaravelan, in the case of Ramasamy Singaravelan (deceased) vs The Deputy State Tax Officer. (2024) Despite his death on May 7, 2022, the GST department issued assessment orders for FY 2017-18 and 2022-23, leading to recovery actions.

The writ petition was filed by his wife, S. Sumathi, who became aware of the proceedings only via a phone call from tax authorities. The court held that continuing tax recovery proceedings against a deceased person was legally unsustainable and violated principles of natural justice, rendering such orders void ab initio.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the authorities acted without knowledge of the death, but that did not justify ex parte orders against a non-existent person. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with the petitioner permitted to file responses within four weeks.

Section 93 CGST Act Bars Tax Demand Against Deceased Without Notice to Legal Heirs (Allahabad HC)

In Amit Kumar Sethia vs State of U.P. & Anr. (2025), the court held that tax authorities cannot initiate GST proceedings against a deceased person without notifying their legal heirs. The authorities had issued a notice under Section 73 despite the assessee’s death and cancellation of his firm’s registration.

The Allahabad High Court ruled this action invalid. Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for recovery of tax dues from legal heirs only if the business continues after the person’s death, but it does not permit fresh tax determination against a deceased individual. The order was accordingly set aside.

Pre-Death Notice, Post-Death Order: Madras HC Says Assessment Against Deceased Is Void

Another interesting decision related to a tax notice to a dead person was pronounced by the Madras High Court in RobinJohn vs The State Tax Officer (2025).

The court quashed an order passed on July 29, 2024, holding it to be non est in law as it was issued after the assessee’s death on May 24, 2024. The first notice (DRC-01) had been issued on May 3, 2024, followed by hearing notices, despite the petitioner (his son) submitting a death certificate. The department had also frozen the bank account, prompting the legal heir to file the writ petition.

The Court allowed the plea, set aside the order, directed to de-freeze the account, and granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs under the law.

SCN Can Be Issued to a Legal Representative Only If They Are Carrying On the Deceased’s Business. (Delhi HC)

In the pertinent case of USHAGUPTA vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST (2024), the Delhi High Court set aside a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to a deceased sole proprietor, ruling it invalid as it was not addressed to the legal representative, as required under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, Usha Gupta, challenged the notice sent posthumously to her late husband, Surender Kumar Gupta.

The Court clarified that while legal heirs can be held liable for tax dues under Section 93 of the GST Act, 2017, if they continue the business of the deceased, the department must first serve the SCN properly on such legal representatives. Since the SCN in this case was addressed to a non-existent person (the deceased), it was procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable.

The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta, emphasised that a sole proprietorship dies with the proprietor, and therefore, any tax recovery must follow the statutory procedure of identifying and serving the legal heir who may have taken over the business.

GST Demand Issued Despite Intimation of Assessee’s Death is Invalid (MADRAS HC)

The Madras High Court in Rekhavs The Commercial Tax Officer (2025) quashed a GST demand order issued against M.K. Girish, a businessman who passed away on 25th February 2021. Despite being officially informed of his death on 29th June 2022, the GST department continued to send notices and eventually issued a demand order on 26th February 2025.

The petitioner argued that these actions violated the principles of natural justice, as proceedings were carried out against a deceased person. The Court agreed, stating that such proceedings were invalid, ex parte, and legally void.

However, the court allowed the department to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs of the deceased. It directed the heirs to participate in the new process and submit their responses. The writ petition was allowed without any cost, and related petitions were closed.

GST Demand Raised Post-Death of Proprietor Without Notifying Legal Heir is Void (Allahabad HC)

In AgarwalKhilona Bazar vs State of U.P. & Anr. (2025), the Allahabad High Court ruled that any GST proceedings initiated against a deceased person without involving their legal representative are void ab initio. The case involved a ₹3.09 lakh demand raised under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act against the late Kamini Agarwal, despite her passing in 2020 and the cancellation of her firm’s registration in 2022.

The Court held that under Section 93 of the CGST Act 2017, tax dues may be recovered from the estate of a deceased person through their legal representative only after issuing a proper notice. As no such notice was served, the proceedings were quashed. The Court, however, allowed the department to reinitiate proceedings perseveringly

Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued 4 Years After Proprietor’s Death, Allows Legal Heir to Contest

In S.R.Steels vs The Deputy State Tax Officer (2024), the Madras High Court quashed a GST demand order that was issued against a proprietor nearly four years after her death. The Court observed that continuing proceedings against a deceased person is legally unsustainable and directed the tax authorities to provide an opportunity to the legal heir to respond.

The court further ordered the release of the frozen bank account, subject to a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount, and remanded the matter back to the department for fresh consideration.

CONCLUSION

High Courts across India have made it clear that issuing GST notices or orders against a deceased person is not valid. However, under Section 93 of the GST Act, the legal heirs can be held responsible, but only if proper notice and procedure are followed. These rulings highlight the importance of fair treatment and correct legal steps when dealing with tax demands after someone’s death.