Show-Cause Notice and Assessment Order Issued Against a Deceased Person are Nullities in Law

The petitioner is the widow and legal heir of Irshadahmed Chaudhary, who operated a proprietorship firm, "Ideal Steel Corporation," registered under the GST Act. The proprietor passed away on 29.07.2020 after a prolonged illness

Following his death, the registration of the entity was cancelled by the respondent authorities on 03.03.2021 with nil demands

On 24.06.2025—nearly five years after the proprietor’s death—the respondent issued a pre-show cause notice (DRC-01A), followed by a formal notice under Section 74(1) of the GGST Act on 26.06.2025, and an adjudication order (DRC-07) on 04.12.2025, all in the name of the deceased taxpayer

The petitioner, a housewife with no connection to the business, challenged these actions as a nullity

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 74(1) and a subsequent order passed under Section 74(9) of the GGST Act against a deceased person are legally valid or constitute a nullity.

2. Whether the definition of "person" under the GGST Act extends to a deceased individual for the purpose of initiating recovery proceedings in their name.

The Court examined Section 74(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax (GGST) Act, 2017, which empowers the proper officer to serve notice only on a "person chargeable with tax"

It further referred to the definition of "person" under Section 2(84) of the GGST Act, noting it includes an individual (in the case of a proprietorship) but does not contemplate a deceased individual as a taxable entity

The primary principle applied is that any notice or order issued against a dead person is without jurisdiction and a nullity in the eyes of the law

The Court found that the facts were undisputed: the proprietor had passed away in July 2020, yet the impugned notice and order were issued in 2025 in the name of the deceased

The respondent State was unable to controvert this factual position

The Court reasoned that since Section 74(1) requires service of notice upon a "person," and a deceased individual does not fall within the functional definition of a "person chargeable with tax" for the initiation of such a proceeding, the authorities lacked the jurisdiction to proceed against him

The lack of awareness regarding the death did not validate the proceedings, as the resulting orders were fundamentally void from inception

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice and order

the respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner (as the legal heir) for any outstanding demands, provided such proceedings are conducted in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed