[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Hitesh Patel vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9693-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3194/2026
Shri Hitesh Patel S/o Late Bhagwan Lal Dangi, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of 203, Eklingpura, Kaladwas, Udaipur.rajasthan.
313003.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur.302005.
2. The Chief Commissioner (Sgst), Commercial Tax
Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle,
Jaipur.302005
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Sgst), Circle-B, Udaipur
Ward- Iii, Udaipur. 313001.
4. Joint Commissioner State Tax, Circle-B, Room No.201,
New Building, 1St Floor, Kar Bhawan, Patel Circle,
Udaipur.
5. Executive Magistrate-Cum- Tehsildar, Girwa
Udaipur.rajasthan.
6. Union Of India, Through Secretary Finance (Revenue),
Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government
Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.110001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
23/02/2026
1. Petitioner herein, son of the deceased-assessee i.e. Late Shri
Bhagwan Lal Dangi is before this Court assailing an Assessment
Order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.3-Assistant
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 11:21:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9693-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-3194/2026]
Commissioner (SGST), Circle -B, Udaipur - ward -III, Udaipur,
wherein demand of unpaid tax for the Financial Year i.e. 2022-23
has been raised qua the business activities being carried out by
his late father.
2. Succinctly speaking, the relevant facts of the case, shorn of
the unnecessary details, are as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner's father (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased") was a PWD contractor operating as sole proprietor of
M/s Patel Enterprises (GSTIN 08AJIPD6587G1ZX). The GST
registration of the proprietorship was cancelled retrospectively
w.e.f. 31.03.2018 vide order dated 18.04.2019, allegedly without
adherence to due process and without affording an opportunity of
personal hearing.
2.2 Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice
dated 23.05.2025 in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 of the
CGST/RGST Act for FY 2018-19 to 2023-24, calling upon the
deceased to make payment within 30 days. The notice was
uploaded on the common portal despite the prior cancellation of
registration. According to the petitioner, notice was neither in the
prescribed format nor accompanied by any opportunity of personal
hearing. Before any reply could be filed, the deceased was
hospitalized on 08.06.2025 due to severe liver ailments and
passed away on 10.06.2025.
2.3 Thereafter, a demand order dated 10.07.2025 was passed in
the name of the deceased, allegedly in breach of Section 75(4) of
the CGST Act, which mandates the grant of a personal hearing.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities initiated recovery
proceedings, including addressing communication to the revenue
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 11:21:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9693-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-3194/2026]
authorities seeking transfer of land standing in the name of the
deceased. The petitioner subsequently apprised the department of
his father's demise and clarified that the business had not been
continued by any legal heir, but to no avail.
3. Hence, this instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
demand is based on survey made on 19.07.2025 during the
lifetime of father of the petitioner. It is also asserted that the
survey and the demand relates to the work undertaken during the
lifetime of the father of the petitioner who was the sole proprietor
of the business concern and, therefore, tax liability cannot be
fastened on the petitioner as he had nothing to do with the
business.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also vehemently
argue that the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is void ab initio
and is non est and is passed against a dead person in violation of
the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) and 75(6) of the CGST
Act.
4.2. Since no hearing was afforded either to the father of the
petitioner or to the petitioner, it is contended that such denial has
resulted in a one-sided application of mind by the Assessing
Officer, without any independent consideration of the petitioner's
case. It is submitted that had an opportunity of hearing been
granted, the petitioner would have had a fair chance to put forth
his defence and contest the alleged tax liability.
5. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General
and Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav appearing on advance service while
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 11:21:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9693-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-3194/2026]
opposing the petition stated that under Section 93 of the Central
Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST
Act') even after the death of the assessee, the tax liability is
recoverable from legal representatives.
6. Having heard the rival contention of the parties and upon
perusal of the record, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot
claim immunity from the tax liability, if any, in view of Section 93
of CGST Act, relevant of which is reproduced hereinunder:-
"Section 93. Special provisions regarding liability to pay tax,
interest or penalty in certain cases.-
(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), where a person, liable to pay tax,
interest or penalty under this Act, dies, then-
(a) if a business carried on by the person is continued after his
death by his legal representative or any other person, such legal
representative or other person, shall be liable to pay tax, interest
or penalty due from such person under this Act; and
(b) if the business carried on by the person is discontinued,
whether before or after his death, his legal representative shall be
liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to
which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest
or penalty due from such person under this Act, whether such tax,
interest or penalty has been determined before his death but has
remained unpaid or is determined after his death."
7. In light of the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that Section
93(1)(b) of the CGST Act expressly provides that where tax
liability is sought to be recovered qua a business that has been
discontinued due to the death of the assessee, the legal
representative shall be liable to discharge such liability out of the
estate of the deceased.
8. However, Section 93, supra, is subject to the caveat
contained in Section 75 of the CGST Act, which mandates that any
person upon whom tax liability is proposed to be imposed must be
afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, and that any order
passed pursuant thereto must be a reasoned and speaking order.
For ready reference same is reproduced as under:-
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 11:21:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9693-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-3194/2026]
"75. General provisions relating to determination of tax. -
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is
received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or
where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
(6) The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts
and the basis of his decision."
9. Trite it may sound that the assessment proceedings which
are initiated and are to be enforced against the person who are
the heirs/LRs of the deceased assessee would be vitiated in the
absence of compliance of the statutory provisions contained under
Section 75(4) and (6) of the CGST Act, ibid.
10. The conceded fact in the instant case is that the petitioner,
being the legal heir, was not issued any independent notice prior
to the passing of the Assessment Order. The father of the
petitioner died on 10.06.2025, and the Assessment Order was
passed thereafter, on 10.07.2025.
11. Even otherwise, impugned order seems to fall foul of the
requirement mandated under Section 75 (6), ibid.
12. In the premise, since the petitioner is the legal
representative of the deceased assessee, being his son, as already
held hereinabove, he is entitled to be heard, and the Assessment
Order ought to have been passed only after the Assessment
Officer had set out all the relevant facts and disclosed the basis of
his decision.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
Assessment Order dated 10.07.2025 is quashed and set aside,
with liberty to the respondents to issue a notice to the petitioner
in accordance with law. Needless to state, any liability assessed
after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall be
recoverable only against the estate of the assessee in terms of
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 11:21:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9693-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-3194/2026]
Section 93, ibid., and to that extent, the respondents shall
proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the same.
14. It transpires that during the pendency of the assessment
proceedings in respect of the tax liability in question, the estate of
the deceased father of the petitioner was under attachment. In
the premise, since the Assessment Order has been quashed until
the passing of a fresh order by the Assessment Officer, the
petitioner shall maintain status quo with respect to the estate of
the deceased father.
15. All pending application(s) including stay petition stand
disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
165-a.asopa/-
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 11:21:05 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
