The Calcutta High Court has clarified an important procedural safeguard concerning GST proceedings against deceased taxpayers. In Gita Rani Pan v. The Union of India & Ors., the Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a show cause notice or determine tax liability against a person who had already died. If tax proceedings are required to be continued after the taxpayer’s death, the notice must be issued separately to the legal representatives in their own names, identifying them as the legal heirs of the deceased.
The judgment, delivered on 27 August 2026 by Justice Smita Das De, resulted in the quashing of a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), as well as the consequential Order-in-Original and recovery notice.
Facts of the Case
The proceedings arose from the case of Late Haradhan Pan, a proprietor who died on 20 May 2021. Despite his death, the GST authorities subsequently issued a show cause notice dated 8 March 2022 under Section 74 of the CGST Act in his name.
His wife, Gita Rani Pan, challenged the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court. Following her husband’s death, she had obtained a fresh GST registration in her own name for the same business, with the business commencement date stated as 21 May 2021. She also applied for cancellation of the GST registration that had stood in the name of her deceased husband.
The petitioner argued that proceedings initiated against a deceased person were legally unsustainable from the outset. She relied, among other precedents, upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs.
Department’s Stand
The GST authorities opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner had failed to inform the Department about the proprietor’s death within the prescribed period.
The Department relied upon Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act, which provides for the liability of a legal representative in respect of tax, interest and penalty payable by a deceased taxable person. According to the Department, such liability could be recovered from the estate of the deceased inherited by the legal representative.
The authorities also relied on Section 29(3) of the CGST Act, which provides that cancellation of GST registration does not extinguish liabilities relating to any period preceding the date of cancellation.
The Department therefore argued that the tax liability could still be determined and recovered even after the death of the original taxable person.
High Court’s Key Finding
The High Court drew an important distinction between the existence of liability and the procedure for determining that liability.
The Court acknowledged that Section 93(1)(b) can make a legal representative liable for tax, interest and penalty payable by the deceased person, but only subject to the statutory limitation concerning the estate inherited by the legal representative.
However, the Court observed that Section 93 does not itself provide the machinery for determining such liability.
According to the Court, the machinery for determination of tax under the CGST Act is contained in Sections 73 and 74. These provisions require the proper officer to issue a show cause notice to the person liable to pay tax and provide an opportunity to respond before the liability is determined.
Consequently, a tax liability cannot validly be determined against a person who was already deceased when the proceedings were initiated.
Notice Must Be Issued to Legal Heirs
The Court made it clear that the Department cannot adopt a procedure whereby it first issues a show cause notice in the name of a deceased taxpayer and subsequently asks the legal heirs to respond to that notice.
Instead, if proceedings are legally permissible against the estate of a deceased taxpayer, the legal representative must be independently served with a show cause notice in their own name, clearly describing their capacity as the legal representative of the deceased.
This distinction is significant because the legal representative must receive an opportunity to contest the proposed liability before an order determining tax, interest or penalty is passed.
The Court observed that the statutory framework requires the legal representative to be given an opportunity to respond before liability is determined.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The High Court also relied upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs.
The Supreme Court had previously emphasized that while a statute may provide for recovery of dues from a deceased person’s legal representative, the authorities must also have proper statutory machinery for determining the liability against such representative.
The Calcutta High Court applied the same principle to GST proceedings and concluded that Section 93 cannot be treated as a substitute for the statutory procedure prescribed for determination of tax liability.
What the Court Ordered
The Calcutta High Court quashed:
- The show cause notice issued in the name of the deceased proprietor;
- The consequential Order-in-Original; and
- The recovery notice.
However, the Court did not permanently prevent the GST Department from examining the underlying tax issue.
The authorities were directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the legal heirs within three weeks. The legal representatives must be provided an opportunity for a personal hearing, following which the Department must pass a reasoned and speaking order.
Importantly, any liability imposed upon the legal representative under Section 93(1)(b) must remain subject to the statutory limitation that recovery is confined to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased.
Key Takeaway for Taxpayers and Legal Heirs
The judgment provides an important procedural clarification for GST authorities, taxpayers and legal representatives of deceased proprietors.
A GST demand does not automatically become enforceable against legal heirs merely because the deceased taxpayer had outstanding tax liabilities. The Department must follow the prescribed statutory procedure and provide the legal representatives with an independent opportunity to contest the proposed liability.
Therefore, where a GST notice is issued in the name of a person who had already died, legal representatives should carefully examine the validity of the proceedings and the manner in which the Department has invoked Section 93.
At the same time, the judgment does not mean that the tax liability of a deceased taxpayer automatically disappears upon death. Subject to the applicable statutory provisions, the Department may proceed against the legal representative, but it must follow the correct legal procedure and respect the limitation relating to the deceased person’s estate.
Case Details
Case: Gita Rani Pan v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.A. 10402 of 2025
Court: Calcutta High Court
Decision Date: 27 August 2026
Key Provisions: Sections 73, 74, 93(1)(b) and 29(3) of the CGST Act, 2017
Key Precedent: Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of tax administration: the Department must follow the procedure prescribed by law while determining tax liability against the legal representatives of a deceased taxpayer.
Issuing a show cause notice to a person who was already dead and subsequently asking the legal heirs to answer that notice is not sufficient. A fresh notice must be issued to the legal representatives in their own names, their response must be considered, and liability must be determined through a reasoned order.
The ruling therefore provides an important procedural protection to legal heirs while simultaneously preserving the Department’s statutory right to recover legitimate GST dues from the deceased taxpayer’s estate, subject to the limits prescribed under the law.