SCN Legal Representative – HC Quashes GST Demand

Case Details: Devendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 174 taxmann.com 571 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Kshitij Shailendra, J.
• Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ashish Bansal & Siddharth Yadav for the Petitioner.
• Ankur Agarwal, SC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The sole proprietor of a GST-registered firm, referred to as ‘D’, passed away. Following his demise, the GST registration of the proprietorship firm, which stood in his name, was cancelled retrospectively i.e. before the death of sole proprietor. Despite the cancellation of registration and the death of the proprietor, the Revenue issued a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 in the name of the deceased.

The SCN and subsequent reminders were merely uploaded on the GST portal and were not served upon any legal representative. On the basis of this SCN, a demand order was passed under Section 73(9), raising tax liability in the name of the deceased. The legal representative, submitted that he had no knowledge of any such proceedings as the portal was inaccessible after cancellation of registration, and no notice was ever issued to him. He therefore approached the Hon’ble High Court, challenging the validity of the demand order, on the ground that no proceedings could be initiated or completed after the death of the registered person without due notice to the legal representative.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that issuing a show cause notice to the legal representative of a deceased person is an essential and mandatory step for any valid tax determination under Section 73 of the CGST Act. It noted that the entire process—including the show cause notice, reminders, and the final order—had been carried out after the death of the proprietor, without any notice being served on the legal representative.

The Court emphasised that upon the death of a taxable person, any pending or intended proceedings must be addressed to the legal representative, and only after seeking a response can demand be determined. Since this mandatory procedural requirement was not complied with, the principles of natural justice stood clearly violated. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside as legally unsustainable.