No GST demand from son without showing he continued business of deceased father firm

No GST demand from son for the deceased father firm without showing that son was continuing the business in the name of his father’s proprietary concern.

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand quashed GST order making demand from the son of the deceased father as there was no material to show that the son was continuing the business in the name of his father’s proprietary concern after his father’s death in spite of the Son obtaining a fresh registration in his own name.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4626 (2025) (07) abcaus.in HC

The petitioner’s father had obtained a certificate of GST registration dated 17.07.2018 under the GST Act in a trade name of his proprietorship firm w.e.f. 01.07.2018. The father of the Petitioner died on 13.02.2018 and his son (the petitioner) applied for GST registration in his own name and another certificate of registration dated 24.03.2018 was issued. The registration in favour of the proprietary concern of the father was cancelled on 10.01.2020. 

Later, an order was passed on 20.12.2022  with regard to father of the petitioner under GST DRC-07 by the GST Officer for the financial year in which the father of the Petitioner had died and another order on the same date was passed for the next financial year.

A summon dated 18.07.2022 was issued under section 70 to the father of the petitioner who no more was regarding non-payment of GST. The petitioner filed a reply thereto stating that his father died on 13.02.2018 and even enclosed the copy of the death certificate. He pointed out that there cannot be any proceeding initiated against a dead person after his death and requested to waive the liability.

However, the impugned order was passed on 28.11.2022 by Assistant Commissioner in regard to the proprietary concern of the petitioner’s deceased father quoting section 93(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. In that order it was held that if the business was carried on by a person’s legal representative after his death, the legal representative would be liable to pay tax, interest or penalty. But the such order did not provide details of any material evidence to show as to how the petitioner was said to be continuing business of the father’s proprietary concern having himself obtained a fresh registration on 24.03.2018.

It was the case of the Department that petitioner was liable to pay the entire GST due along with applicable interest and penalty of his late father’s firm.

However, the Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no material referred to by the Department as to on what basis it was held that the petitioner was continuing the business in the name of his father’s proprietary concern after his father’s death in spite of the petitioner obtaining a fresh registration in his own name on 24.03.2018.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the impugned order was perverse, based on no evidence and cannot be sustained.

Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 28.11.2022 was set aside.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
• EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
• Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment
• A bald statement recorded during survey can not be basis for any addition
• ICAI issued Guidelines for responding to Tenders by Chartered Accountants