Legal Heirs Liable for Deceased’s GST Dues Up to Inherited Estate | HC

Case Details: V. Damayanti vs. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise - [2026] 187 taxmann.com 741 (Madras) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
• Adithya Reddy for the Petitioner. 
• R.Gowri Shankar, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was the legal heir of a deceased proprietor who had carried on business in industrial soaps and polishes. Upon the death of the proprietor, the business was discontinued, and the GST registration was cancelled. Subsequently, the jurisdictional officer issued Form DRC-01A alleging non-filing of returns in relation to the e-way bill. The petitioner submitted replies contending that no proceedings had been initiated during the deceased proprietor’s lifetime. Thereafter, a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 was issued, and an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act determined tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that the expression ‘person chargeable with tax’ could not be extended to a legal heir where the business had already been discontinued, and that proceedings could not be initiated after the death of the proprietor. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Section 93 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act expressly created a statutory liability upon legal heirs in respect of tax dues of a deceased person and permitted recovery to the extent of the estate inherited by them. The Court held that the expression ‘person chargeable with tax’ occurring in the adjudication provisions was wider than the expression ‘taxable person’ and encompassed any person upon whom the statute imposed liability, including legal heirs. It further held that the phrase ‘determined after his death’ in the liability provision contemplated the entire adjudicatory process, including issuance of notices and passing of adjudication orders after the death of the assessee. The Court observed that discontinuance of the business and cancellation of GST registration did not bar initiation of proceedings against the legal heir in respect of liabilities relating to the period when the business was operational. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Peekay Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner 2007 taxmann.com 1776 (SC)/(2007) 4 SCC 30 (para 4.8) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar 2004 taxmann.com 1911 (SC) (para 3.2)
• Peekay Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner 2007 taxmann.com 1776 (SC) (para 3.2)
• Laghu Udyog Bharati and another v. Union of India [1999] 105 Taxman 630 (SC) (para 3.3)
• Rishi Shangari v. Union of India [2025] 173 taxmann.com 664 (Jharkhand)/[2025] 109 GST 637 (Jharkhand) (para 3.4)
• S. Gowthaman v. ITO [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1125 (Madras) (para 3.5)
• Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 73 (SC)/[2024] 90 GSTL 3 (SC)/[2024] 106 GST 250 (SC) (para 4.9)