๐๐: ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐ฒ๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ฅ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐
๐๐ฌ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ญ๐ ๐๐ฌ. ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ซ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐
Facts:
โช๏ธThe case involved a show cause notice (SCN) issued by the CGST authorities for recovery of tax, interest, and penalties against a deceased individual who was the sole proprietor of a firm.
โช๏ธThe SCN was challenged by Usha Gupta, the wife of the deceased, who filed a writ petition on the grounds that the notice was improperly addressed to a deceased person rather than a legal representative.
Judgment:
โช๏ธThe Delhi High Court quashed the SCN, holding that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is legally untenable, as it must be directed to the legal representative or the person managing the business.
โช๏ธThe Court cited a precedent from the Madras High Court in the Unnikrishnan R case, which supported the principle that a tax recovery notice must not be addressed to a non-existent person.
โช๏ธIt was clarified that the quashing of the SCN would not prevent the authorities from issuing a fresh notice to the legal representative.