The Calcutta High Court has held that a show cause notice issued in the name of a deceased sole proprietor — and the order-in-original passed on that notice — are void ab initio, directing the department to issue a fresh SCN to the legal heirs of the deceased in accordance with the correct statutory procedure under Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The ruling, by Justice Smita Das De in WPA 10402 of 2025 (Gita Rani Pan, decided 27.08.2026), clarifies a procedural question that has increasingly arisen as GST investigations catch up with tax periods preceding or during the early years of the pandemic — a period when many sole proprietors passed away.
The facts: Haradhan Pan, a sole proprietor, died on 20.05.2021. His wife registered herself with a fresh GST number from the date after his death and carried on the business in her own name. An application for cancellation of the deceased proprietor's registration was filed on 10.05.2022. Despite being informed of the death, the GST authorities issued an SCN dated 08.03.2022 in the name of the deceased proprietor for the period July 2017 to September 2021. The petitioner (the wife) filed replies in 2024, and the adjudicating authority passed an OIO dated 21.01.2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 38,44,674. The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that no valid notice could be issued to a dead person.
The court's analysis is textually grounded. Section 2(84) of the CGST Act defines "person" — a dead person is not a "person" within that definition. Sections 73 and 74, which provide the machinery for determination of tax, require issuance of a SCN to a "person chargeable with tax" — a dead person cannot be so chargeable. Section 93(1)(b) provides that where a sole proprietor dies and the business is discontinued, the legal representative is liable to pay the tax, interest and penalty due from the deceased out of the inherited estate — but this is a charging provision identifying who bears the liability; it is not a machinery provision that authorises proceeding against the dead person. The machinery must be provided by Sections 73 and 74, which require notice to the person who is now legally responsible — the legal representative or heir.
The court drew on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs (2015), which had held that Section 93 of the corresponding excise provision does not provide a machinery to assess the deceased — the department must issue notice to the legal representative. The Calcutta HC held that the same principle applies under the CGST Act. The correct procedure is: identify the legal heirs, issue an SCN to them describing them as legal representatives of the deceased, seek their response on the tax liability, and pass an order after hearing them — with recovery confined to the estate of the deceased capable of meeting the charge. The impugned SCN, OIO and recovery notice were all quashed. A fresh SCN to the three identified legal heirs (wife and two children) was directed within three weeks.
2026-juristway.com-2362-HC(Calcutta)-GST | High Court of Calcutta | WPA 10402 of 2025 | 27.08.2026