The Kerala High Court has held that assessment proceedings initiated and completed against a deceased person without issuing notice to their legal heirs are legally unsustainable. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, which governs tax liability in the event of a person's death.
The judgment was passed by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. in the case Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner (WP(C) No. 9318 of 2025), where the petitioner, Geetha K.K, challenged the validity of a GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband, Hareesh Kumar, who ran a proprietorship concern under the name “Ruby Steels.”
Read also:- Delhi High Court Allows Termination of 27-Week Pregnancy of Minor Rape Survivor
Hareesh Kumar passed away on January 21, 2024, and the business was shut down shortly thereafter. Despite the petitioner notifying the GST department of his death and the business closure, a show cause notice dated August 2, 2024 was still issued in his name. A formal reply (Exhibit P2) was submitted by Geetha K.K. to the third respondent—Additional Commissioner—informing them of her husband’s demise.
“Here the impugned notice and the order of assessment are against a dead person, which cannot be treated as legally sustainable,”
— Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Read also:- Supreme Court Implemented SC/ST Reservation in Staff Recruitment for the First Time Under CJI Gavai
Nonetheless, the department proceeded with the assessment and issued the GST DRC-07 summary order (Exhibit P5) in the name of the deceased taxpayer, prompting the present writ petition.
While the department defended its action citing Section 93 of the CGST Act, which allows proceedings to be continued against legal heirs out of the deceased's estate, the Court clarified that such liability can only be determined after issuing proper notice to legal representatives.
“Even though the liability of the legal representative may continue by virtue of Section 93, the same can be finalized only after issuing notice to such legal representatives,”
— Kerala High Court
Considering the facts, the High Court found the impugned orders to be in violation of procedural norms and set aside both the show cause order and summary order. The Court directed the department to re-initiate the proceedings only after serving notice to the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased.
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) No. 9318 of 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Ammu Charles, K. Srikumar, K. Manoj Chandran
Counsel for Respondents: Jasmin M.M, V. Girishkumar
