Orissa High Court
M/S. J.S. Enterprisers vs The Superintendent on 22 July, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13452 of 2026
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
M/s. J.S. Enterprisers
Represented by
Sri Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra
Aged about 32 years
Legal heir of
Late Manoranjan Mohapatra
Adaspur-Niali Road, Adaspur
Cuttack, Odisha – 754 011
GSTIN: 21AGEPM8738K1Z5
By Profession: Business. … Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Superintendent
Central GST and Cx Division
Cuttack-I Cuttack
Plot No.5(P), Sector-6, CDA
Cuttack – 753 014.
2. Assistant Commissioner
Central GST and CX Division
Cuttack-I Cuttack
Plot No.5(P), Sector-6, CDA
Cuttack – 753 014. … Opposite parties
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 1 of 30
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : M/s. Prakash Kumar Jena,
Siba Prasad Dalai,
and Laxmi Narayan Sahoo,
AdvocatesFor the Opposite parties : Mr. Mukesh Agarwal,
Junior Standing Counsel
(Goods and Services Tax,
Central Excise and Customs
Department)P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
ANDHONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMANDate of Hearing : 25.06.2026 :: Date of Order : 22.07.2026
O RDER
Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01,
dated 26.09.2025 accompanied by Demand-cum-Show
Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-1) and Order
dated 29.12.2025 along with Order-in-Original dated
29.12.2025 (Annexure-2) issued by the Assistant
Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Cuttack-I
Division, Cuttack, raising a demand under Section 73 in
terms of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read
with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017, pertaining to Financial Year 2021-22
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 2 of 30
(covering tax periods from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022) are
assailed in the afore-noted writ petition, wherein the
petitioner craves to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
with the prayer(s) to grant following relief(s):
―Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice and equity the petitioner prays the
Hon’ble Court to kindly consider the aforementioned facts
and be pleased to:
(I) admit the writ petition;
(II) issue writ of certiorari calling upon the opposite
parties to send all paper and documents in issuing
show cause notice dated 26.09.2025 in Annexure-1
and passing order dated 29.12.2025 in Annexure-2
so that the same can be examined by the Hon’ble
Court.
(III) issue writ of mandamus directing the opposite
parties to show cause why the show cause notice
dated 26.09.2025 in Annexure-1 and passing order
dated 29.12.2025 in Annexure-2 shall not be
quashed and if the opposite parties fail to show
cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule
absolute.
(IV) issue rule NISI giving effect to the above prayer(s);
(V) pass such other or further order(s) or such
direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, to meet the ends of justice; and(VI) allow this writ petition.
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 3 of 30
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty
bound ever pray‖
2. Sri Manoranjan Mohapatra (as proprietor) was carrying
on business in the name and style “M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers” being assigned with GSTIN:
21AGEPM8738K1Z5 and stated to have issued e-
invoices as required under Notification No.88/2020-
Central Tax, dated 10.11.2020 on the transactions of
supply and received tax e-invoices from companies like
Ultratech Cement Ltd., JK Lakshmi Cement Ltd.,
Bhartia Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and MSP Sponge Iron Ltd.
etc. as per Section 31 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (collectively be referred to as “GST Act”) read with
Rule 48(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules,
2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
(collectively be referred to as “GST Rules”). As per
records maintained by him, regular returns as required
under the statute were being filed indicating claim of
and availment of input tax credit and disclosing
discharge of tax liability. During the Financial Year
2021-22 total tax liability discharged was shown to be at
Rs.2,97,20,836.79.
2.1. On the death of proprietor of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers,
namely Sri Manoranjan Mohapatra on 24.11.2022, the
legal heirs decided to continue with the business in theWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 4 of 30
same name and style till 31.03.2023. Thereafter it was
decided to run the business in the name and style “M/S.
J.S. ENTERPRISERS” by constituting a partnership firm
comprising Sri Chitta Ranjan Mohapatra, Sri Rashmi
Ranjan Mohapatra and Sri Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra as
partners. Accordingly application dated 25.01.2023 was
made for issue of new registration certificate in the name
“M/s. J.S. Enterprisers”, with the status of partnership
firm. A registration certificate assigning GSTIN:
21ABWFM0651L1Z0 was issued on 03.02.2023 giving
effect from 25.01.2023 in the Legal name and Trade
name as “M/S. J.S. ENTERPRISERS” with status
partnership firm.
2.2. It was also decided by the legal heirs of Late Manoranjan
Mohapatra 1 having Legal name and Trade name
“Manoranjan Mohapatra” assigned with GSTIN:
21AGEPM8738K1Z5 to continue with the proprietorship
business to be run by one of the legal heirs, namely
Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra. For the said purpose
application for non-core amendment being made, it was
approved by the Goods and Services Tax Organisation
on 20.06.2023. The petitioner filed returns in Form
GSTR-3B for the tax periods April, May and June of
2023 during the Financial Year 2023-24 disclosing1 Copy of Legal Heir Certificate enclosed as Annexure-4A with the writ petition,
discloses the following are the heirs of Late Manoranjan Mohapatra:
Basanti Mohapatra (wife); Salina Sahoo (daughter); Rasmiranjan Mohapatra
(son); Jyotiranjan Mohapatra (son).
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 5 of 30
“Manoranjan Mohapatra” as Legal Name and “M/S. J.S.
ENTERPRISERS” as Trade Name using GSTIN:
21AGEPM8738K1Z5.
2.3. Upon scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the GST
Act, 2017, the Superintendent, opposite party No.1,
issued notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 28.05.2025
read with Rule 99 of the GST Rules in the name of
deceased “Manoranjan Mohapatra” who died on
24.11.2022 and said fact was within the knowledge of
the Goods and Services Tax Organisation being
intimated on 25.01.2023. No reply could be filed in
response to such notice by the legal heir/petitioner as
the notice in Form GST ASMT-10 in the common portal
was issued in the name of the deceased-Late
Manoranjan Mohapatra.
2.4. In consequence thereof, Demand-cum-Show Cause
Notice under Section 73 of the GST Act read with Rule
100(2) and Rule 142(1)(a) vide Ref. No.
ZD210925001298J dated 01.09.2025 was issued by the
Superintendent, opposite party No.1. This apart, another
Show Cause Notice was issued by the Assistant
Commissioner, opposite party No.2, vide Ref.
No.ZD210925039360M dated 26.09.2025 in Form GST
DRC-01 in the common portal in the name of deceased
“Manoranjan Mohapatra” despite the fact that the Goods
and Services Tax Organisation has carried out
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 6 of 30
amendment of the non-core field in registration
particulars on 20.06.2023 indicating Sri Jyoti Ranjan
Mohapatra as legal heir of Late Manoranjan Mohapatra.
2.5. The petitioner, legal heir of the deceased Late
Manoranjan Mohapatra, describing as “Jyoti
Mohapatra”, indicating the status “legal heir” filed reply
in Form GST DRC-06 to Show Cause Notice in Form
GST DRC-01, dated 01.09.2025 vide Ref. No.
ZD210925001298J on 30.09.2025. Considering said
reply the opposite party No.1 dropped the allegation(s)
by passing Order-in-Original No. SUPDT/CTC-
III/GST/135/2025, dated 29.12.2025.
2.6. On the other hand, so far as the proceeding initiated by
the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise,
Cuttack-I Division, Cuttack by issue of Show Cause
Notice in Form GST DRC-06 (Ref.
No.ZD210925039360M), dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-1)
under Section 73 of the GST Act indicating “NA” against
serial No.2 (Date of personal hearing), serial No.3 (Time
of personal hearing) and serial No.4 (Venue where
personal hearing will be held), notwithstanding
explanation offered by Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra
(petitioner), describing as the legal heir of Late
Manoranjan Mohapatra, the proprietor of “M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers” with GSTIN: 21AGEPM8738K1Z5, vide
Reply to Show Cause Notice (ARN: SD211025020736X)
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 7 of 30
placing “tick mark” against serial No.7 exercising option
for personal hearing, said Authority proceeded with the
matter.
2.7. In view of voluminous documents relating to
transactions effected during Financial Year 2021-22
were to be uploaded to substantiate the claim of M/s.
J.S. Enterprisers proprietor Late Manoranjan
Mohapatra, personal hearing was opted in the reply.
Despite such information available with the Assistant
Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, he concluded
the proceeding, without due and reasonable adherence
to the principles of natural justice. The proceeding thus
concluded under Section 73 of the GST Act, said
Authority passed an Order-in-Original bearing
No.AC/CTC-I/GST-69/2025, dated 29.12.2025
(Annexure-2) in the name of “Manoranjan Mohapatra”,
who is dead since 24.11.2022.
2.8. Alleging that the proceeding initiated by issue of Show
Cause Notice and passing the Order-in-Original under
Section 73 of the GST Act in furtherance thereto by the
Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise,
Cuttack-I Division, Cuttack (opposite party No.2) are
void ab initio and non est in the eye of law. As such they
being untenable in law, the instant writ application has
been filed with prayer to quash not only the Show Cause
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 8 of 30
Notice(s) (Annexure-1) and the Order-in-Original
(Annexure-2).
3. The short issue involved in this matter is whether the
Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services
Tax and Central Excise, Cuttack-I Division, Cuttack is
competent to initiate proceeding under Section 73 by
issue of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated
26.09.2025 accompanied by Demand-cum-Show Cause
Notice dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-1) and complete said
proceeding by passing Order-in-Original dated
29.12.2025 (Annexure-2), thereby raising a demand
against a dead person (by name, i.e., Manoranjan
Mohapatra), who was running the proprietorship
concern, viz., M/s. J.S. Enterprisers, bearing GSTIN:
21AGEPM8738K1Z5.
3.1. At the stage of “Fresh Admission”, on 25.06.2026 Sri
Prakash Kumar Jena and Sri Siba Prasad Dalai, learned
Advocates and Sri Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior
Standing Counsel for the Goods and Services Tax
Organisation advanced arguments.
3.2. Having heard counsel for respective parties, the matter
stood reserved for preparing and delivery of judgment.
4. Sri Prakash Kumar Jena, learned Advocate contended
that the Show Cause Notice (Annexure-1) and the Order-
in-Original (Annexure-2) are non est in the eye of law
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 9 of 30
and they are rendered nullity inasmuch as the same
cannot subsist as against a dead person. Arduously
contending that in absence of any statutory provision to
initiate and continue with the proceeding against a non-
existing person, the proceeding must abate.
4.1. The learned counsel submitted that upon intimation of
the fact of death of proprietor of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers,
namely Manoranjan Mohapatra, on 24.11.2022, a
partnership firm constituted with partners, namely Jyoti
Ranjan Mohapatra, Chitta Ranjan Mohapatra and Rasmi
Ranjan Mahapatra, was assigned with GSTIN:
21ABWFM0651L1Z0 vide Registration Certificate in
Form GST REG-06 issued by the Superintendent,
Cuttack-II Circle being approved by the Goods and
Services Tax Network on 03.02.2023 (Annexure-5A) to
carry on business in the name and style “M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers”. Further, on consideration of non-core
amendment application, GSTIN: 21AGEPM8738K1Z5
(which was earlier allotted in the name and style “M/s.
J.S. Enterprisers”) has been allowed to continue with
Legal Name and Trade Name: “Manoranjan Mohapatra”
with approval of the Authority concerned on 20.06.2023
(Annexure-6). What is essentially sought to be projected
by the learned counsel that the Show Cause Notice in
GST DRC-01 dated 26.09.2025 along with Demand-cum-
Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025 in the Legal Name:
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 10 of 30
“Manoranjan Mohapatra” and Trade Name: “M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers” and the Order-in-Original dated
29.12.2025 in the name: “M/s. J.S. Enterprisers,
Proprietor: Manoranjan Mohapatra” raising demand with
respect to Financial Year 2021-22 is liable to be quashed
as no notice and demand can be sustained against a
dead person.
5. Sri Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Standing Counsel
representing the opposite parties per contra drawing
attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 93 of
the GST Act, vehemently opposed the submissions made
by Sri Prakash Kumar Jena, learned Advocate and he
would urge that since Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-
01 dated 26.09.2025 along with Demand-cum-Show
Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025 and the Order-in-
Original dated 29.12.2025 were passed by statutory
authority, no infirmity can be imputed against the
Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise,
Cuttack-I Division, Cuttack.
5.1. Expanding his argument further it is urged that since
the petitioner has been continuing with the business
using the same registration number being GSTIN:
21AGEPM8738K1Z5, as he is one of the legal heirs, it
cannot be said that the demand raised upon
participation of the petitioner is non est and void. Had
the petitioner been sanguine about his rights and
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 11 of 30
liabilities under the GST Act and Rules framed
thereunder, it was open for him to contest the Show
Cause Notice/Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice along
with the Order-in-Original before the competent
Authority by taking recourse to alternative forum
available under the said statute.
6. The factual matrix and the arguments advanced by the
counsel for the respective parties leaves sole question for
consideration is whether the Assistant Commissioner,
GST and Central Excise, Cuttack-I Division, Cuttack was
competent to initiate proceeding under Section 73 of
GST Act, 2017 by issue of the Show Cause Notice and
Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (Annexure-1) and
consequent thereto pass Order-in-Original (Annexure-2)
with respect to the transactions pertaining to Financial
Year 2021-22 treating “M/s. J.S. Enterprisers, Proprietor
Manoranjan Mohapatra” as assessee after death of the
proprietor?
7. The documents forming part of the writ petition would
reveal that Annual Return in Form GSTR-9 (Annexure-
3B) for the Financial Year 2021-22 was filed on
31.12.2022 against GSTIN: 21AGEPM8738K1Z5
disclosing Trade Name: “M/s. J.S. Enterprisers” and
Legal Name of the registered person: “Manoranjan
Mohapatra”. After death of Manoranjan Mohapatra
proprietor of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers on 24.11.2022,
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 12 of 30
Registration Certificate in Form GST REG-06 (Annexure-
5A) was issued on 03.02.2023 depicting “M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers”, a partnership firm assigned with GSTIN:
21ABWFM0651L1Z0 (Period of validity is shown to have
been effective from 25.01.2023).
7.1. It is discernible from record that considering the
application for non-core amendment, on 20.06.2023 the
system approved continuance of business assigned with
GSTIN: 21AGEPM8738K1Z5 in the Legal Name and
Trade Name (both) “Manoranjana Mohapatra”
(Annexure-6). Against said GSTIN, while returns in Form
GSTR-3B were submitted for the tax periods April, 2023
and May, 2023, return for the tax period June, 2023 was
filed disclosing “Jyoti Mohapatra” as legal heir of Legal
Name: Manoranjan Mohapatra and Trade Name: M/s.
J.S. Enterprisers. It is further noticed that in the
explanation to show cause notice dated 24.09.2025 filed
before the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central
Excise, Cuttack-III Range, Cuttack (Annexure-8 series) it
has clearly been indicated as follows:
―Respectfully, I Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra, C/o Late
Manoranjan Mohapatra, legal heir of M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers beg to state that we attach herewith e-
invoice, purchase bill, and explanation (page 1 and 2)
letter about all query mentioned in the above notice. All
deposited all such purchase bill and purchase register at
GST Department. ***‖WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 13 of 30
7.2. Application for rectification of orders dated 16.03.2026
clearly speaks out that Sri Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra, legal
heir of proprietor of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers, prayed for
rectification of Order dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure-9).
7.3. Minute scrutiny of above documents evinces that the
information regarding death of Manoranjan Mohapatra
was within the knowledge of the Authority concerned.
Notwithstanding the same, Show Cause Notices at
Annexure-1 were issued in the name of “Manoranjan
Mohapatra” describing him as proprietor of M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers on 25/26.09.2025. Furthermore, the
Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure-2) reflects
as follows:
―2.0 M/s. J.S. Enterprisers, Proprietor: Manoranjan
Mohapatra located at Adaspur, Niali Road, Cuttack,
Odisha – 754 011 … holder of GSTIN
No.21AGEPM8738k1Z5 …‖7.4. It is manifest from the above discussion that even
though the GST Organisation was fully aware that the
proprietor of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers was dead, the
authority concerned issued not only show cause notice
but also passed Order-in-Original against a dead person.
7.5. It may be worthwhile to have reference to following
observations made in Savita Kapila Vrs. CIT, (2020) 426
ITR 502 = 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2540 as referred to inWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 14 of 30
Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara Vrs. CIT, (2021) 436 ITR
469 = 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3701:
―9. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents on the maintainability of the present
petition, as also on merit, are no longer res integra,
having been elaborately discussed and rejected by
this court in its judgment in Savita Kapila (supra)
authored by one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Manmohan). Therefore, instead of revisiting the
issues raised, we would merely reproduce the
findings given by this court in its referred judgment
(page 509 of 426 ITR) :
‗An alternative statutory remedy does not operate as
a bar to maintainability of a writ petition where the
order or notice or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction. If the Assessing Officer had no
jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceeding, the
mere fact that subsequent orders have been passed
would not render the challenge to jurisdiction
infructuous. …
Further, the fact that an assessment order has been
passed and it is open to challenge by way of an
appeal, does not denude the petitioner of its right to
challenge the notice for assessment if it is without
jurisdiction. If the assumption of jurisdiction is
wrong, the assessment order passed subsequently
would have no legs to stand. If the notice goes, so
does the order of assessment. It is trite law
that if the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction
to initiate assessment proceeding, the mere
fact that subsequent orders have been passedWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 15 of 30
would not render the challenge to jurisdiction
infructuous. …
The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen
an assessment is that notice under section 148
should be issued to a correct person and not to a
dead person. Consequently, the jurisdictional
requirement under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 of
service of notice was not fulfilled in the present
instance. …
In the opinion of this court the issuance of a notice
under Section 148 of the Act is the foundation for
reopening of an assessment. Consequently, the
sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to
reopen an assessment is that such notice
should be issued in the name of the correct
person. This requirement of issuing notice to a
correct person and not to a dead person is not
merely a procedural requirement but is a
condition precedent to the impugned notice
being valid in law. [See Sumit Balkrishna Gupta
Vrs. Asst. CIT, (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom) = (2019) 2
TMI 1209 (Bombay High Court)]. …
Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening
notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in
the name of a deceased-assessee is null and void. …
As in the present case proceedings were not
initiated/pending against the assessee when he
was alive and after his death the legal
representative did not step into the shoes of the
deceased-assessee, Section 159 of the Act, 1961
does not apply to the present case. Section 159 of
the Act, 1961 applies to a situation whereWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 16 of 30
proceedings are initiated/pending against the
assessee when he is alive and after his death
the legal representative steps into the shoes of
the deceased-assessee. Since that is not the
present factual scenario, Section 159 of the Act,
1961 does not apply to the present case. …
There is no statutory requirement imposing an
obligation upon legal heirs to intimate the death of
the assessee. This court is of the view that in the
absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast
a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the
factum of death of an assessee to the Income-tax
Department. After all, there may be cases where the
legal representatives are estranged from the
deceased-assessee or the deceased-assessee may
have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity.
Consequently, whether the permanent account
number (PAN) record was updated or not or whether
the Department was made aware by the legal
representatives or not is irrelevant. In Alamelu
Veerappan Vrs. ITO, (2018) 12 ITR-OL 95 (Mad) it
has been held ‗nothing has been placed before this
court by the Revenue to show that there is a
statutory obligation on the part of the legal
representatives of the deceased-assessee to
immediately intimate the death of the assessee or
take steps to cancel the permanent account number
(PAN) registration’. …
Consequently, the legal heirs are under no statutory
obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to
the Revenue. Section 292B of the Act, 1961 has been
held to be inapplicable, vis-a-vis, notice issued to a
dead person in Rajender Kumar Sehgal Vrs. ITO,
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 17 of 30
(2019) 414 ITR 286 (Delhi), Chandreshbhai
Jayantibhai Patel Vrs. ITO (2019) 413 ITR 276 (Guj)
and Alamelu Veerappan (supra).
This court is of the opinion that issuance of notice
upon a dead person and non-service of notice does
not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or
omission. Consequently, Section 292B of the Act,
1961 does not apply to the present case. …
In Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra) a Co-ordinate
Bench of this court has held that Section 292BB of
the Act, 1961 is applicable to an assessee and not to
a legal representative. …
This court is also of the view that Section 292BB of
the Act, 1961 is applicable to an assessee and not to
a legal representative. Further, in the present case
one of the legal heirs of the deceased-assessee, i.e.,
the petitioner, had neither co-operated in the
assessment proceedings nor filed return or waived
the requirement of Section 148 of the Act, 1961 or
submitted to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
She had merely uploaded the death certificate of the
deceased-assessee. …
Consequently, the applicability of Section 292BB of
the Act, 1961 has been held to be attracted to an
assessee and not to legal representatives.’ ***‖
7.6. Sri Mukesh Agarwal, learned Junior Standing Counsel
drew attention of this Court to the following sentences
recorded in the Order-in-Original:
―Shri Sruti Ranjan Swain, Accountant and authorised
representative of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers (noticee) attendedWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 18 of 30
the personal hearing in virtual mode on dated
17.11.2025. ***‖Therefore, he submitted that having participated in the
proceeding, the petitioner cannot avoid the liability as
determined and contest the demand raised in the Order-
in-Original and contend that the demand gets wiped out
despite the fact that the same is issued in the name of
the deceased proprietor. This Court cannot accede to
such submission of the learned Junior Standing Counsel
inasmuch as the petitioner in the present case has
intimated the fact of death of the proprietor of M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers and subsequent events, like issue of
Registration Certificate in favour of partnership firm
namely M/s. J.S. Enterprisers and non-core amendment
being carried out in the Legal Name/Trade Name of
Manoranjan Mohapatra, did occur prior to issue of Show
Cause Notice vide Annexure-1. Being conscious, the
Assistant Commissioner could not have proceeded with
the adjudication process against the dead person.
7.7. The aforesaid stance of the learned Junior Standing
Counsel is repelled as the same has no legal foundation.
It may be noteworthy that in the Application for
rectification of orders (Annexure-9) it has been clearly
mentioned by the petitioner that “At the time of reply of
notice it is not possible to upload each and every bill due
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 19 of 30
to voluminous data and virtual meeting. Due to default
of GST Department IRN are not shown.”
7.8. To buttress his argument that against a dead person
neither Show Cause Notice can be issued nor can the
Order-in-Original be passed and served, Sri Prakash
Kumar Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the following Judgments:
i. Kanakalata Senapati Vrs. Assistant Commissioner
of GST and Central Excise, W.P.(C) No.29819 of
2025, vide Judgment dated 15.01.2026 of this
Court;
ii. Devendra Kumar Singh Vrs. State of U.P., Writ Tax
No.2109 of 2025, decided on 08.05.2025 reported at
2025 (99) GSTL 60 (All) = 2025 SCC OnLine All
82842:
―6. Undisputed facts are that the show cause
notice, reminders and determination of
tax have been made after the death of the
proprietor of the firm. Provisions of Section
93 of the Act, insofar as relevant, reads as
under:
2 Similar are the cases of Rajvanti Devi Vrs. State of U.P., Writ Tax No.142 of 2026,
decided on 29.01.2026 reported at 2026 SCC OnLine All 15633 : 2026 (107)
GSTL 23 (All-Lucknow Bench); Samban Pharma Vrs. Deputy Commissioner, Writ
Tax No.2256 of 2025, decided on 15.05.2025 reported at 2025 (99) GSTL 311
(All); Mudit Gupta Vrs. State of U.P., Writ Tax No.4277 of 2025, decided on
01.09.2025 reported at 2025 (102) GSTL 105 (All).
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 20 of 30
‗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 hisWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 21 of 30
death but has remained unpaid or is
determined after his death.’
7. A perusal of the above provision would reveal
that the same only deals with the liability to
pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the
business is continued after the death, by the
legal representative or where the business is
discontinued, however, the provision does not
deal with the fact as to whether the
determination at all can take place against a
deceased person and the said provision cannot
and does not authorise the determination to be
made against a dead person and recovery
thereof from the legal representative.
8. Once the provision deals with the liability of a
legal representative on account of death of the
proprietor of the firm, it is sine qua non that the
legal representative is issued a show cause
notice and after seeking response from the
legal representative, the determination should
take place.
9. In view thereof, the determination made in the
present case wherein the show cause notice
was issued and the determination was made
against the dead person without issuing notice
to the legal representative, cannot be
sustained.‖iii. Anil Kumar Vrs. State of Punjab, CWP No.5041 of
2025 (O&M), decided on 21.02.2025 reported at
2025 (97) GSTL 185 (P&H):
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 22 of 30
―The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned show
cause notice dated December 19, 2023 (Form GST
DRC-01), issued under Section 73 of CGST Act,
2017, by respondent No.2, in relation to the financial
year 2018-2019, for certain discrepancies were
noticed in the return filed by late Anil Kumar,
resulting in the imposition of a liability of
Rs.9,32,513/-. And also assails the final order
dated April 22, 2024 (Form GST DRC-07), passed by
respondent No.3, under Section 73(9) of PGST Act,
2017, whereby Rs.9,59,678/- are sought to be
recovered from M/s Gauri Shankar Trading
Company on account of an excess claim of Input Tax
Credit (ITC).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that late
Anil Kumar happened to be the sole proprietor
of M/s Gauri Shankar Trading Company, who
unfortunately passed away on May 10, 2020.
Therefore, she submits that the impugned show
cause notice (P-5), having been issued against the
deceased person, and all consequential proceedings,
are null and void. Not just that, she submits that
upon the demise of Anil Kumar, an application for
the cancellation of the GST registration was moved
by his heirs on September 28, 2020. And, vide order
dated April 15, 2021, the authorities cancelled the
registration with effect from June 30, 2020. It is
submitted that despite the authorities being aware
of the cancellation of the GST registration, recovery
proceedings were initiated against a dead person.
However, she fairly submits that although recovery
against the LRs of the deceased (Anil Kumar) under
Section 93(1)(b) of PGST Act, 2017, can be caused,
but the petitioner, in the present case, wereWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 23 of 30
completely deprived of their right to participate in the
impugned proceedings and set out their defence.
Even otherwise, it is urged that the impugned
demand is time-barred in terms of Section 73(10) of
the Act, as an order under Section 73(9) can only be
passed within 3 years from the due date for
furnishing the annual return for the relevant
financial years, which in this case is December 31,
2020.
Notice of motion.
Served with an advance copy of the petition, Ms.
Neha Sonawane, learned Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab, is present in Court on behalf of the
respondent(s). And, on instructions from Mr.
Karanbir Singh Mansa, STO, she submits that
in the given situation, the impugned show
cause notice(s) and the consequential order
dated April 22, 2024, being indefensible, it
would be expedient if the matter is remitted to
the competent authority to pass fresh orders in
accordance with law. Accordingly, she submits
that the impugned show cause notice(s) and the
consequential orders be deemed to have been
withdrawn/re-called. That being so, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that let the petition be
disposed of in terms of the statement made by
learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
In the wake of the position sketched out above, as
also the statements of learned counsel for the
parties, the petition is accordingly disposed of. This
Court is sanguine that the competent authority shall
re-visit the matter in issue in the right earnest, andWP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 24 of 30
pass a comprehensive order assigning reasons in
support thereof.
However, it is made clear that this order shall not
constitute any expression of opinion on the merits of
the case of either party, for, as indicated above, the
competent authority shall examine the
concerns/grievances of the petitioner, strictly in
accordance with law‖iv. Baratam Satish Vrs. Joint Commissioner of Central
Tax, Writ Petition No.6029 of 2025, decided on
24.12.2025 reported at 2025 SCC OnLine AP 5209:
―The petitioner is the son of Late B.
Kameswara Rao, who was the registered
person under the provisions of the Goods &
Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short ―the GST
Act‖]. He passed away on 21.12.2021. It is
stated that the tax consultant was taking care
of the affairs of B. Kameswara Rao, who had
also expired on 04.03.2023. The petitioner
further submits that the business of Late B.
Kameswara Rao, under the name of M/s.
Aravinda Enterprisers had been closed on
20.02.2023 and the same was also approved
by the registering authority on 21.04.2023.
***
5. This provision [Section 93 of the GST Act]
does not deal with the manner in which
the assessment proceedings relating to a
death person should be carried out. This
provision only provides for the method of
recovery of taxes and other dues payable
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 25 of 30
by a death person. Section 93(1)(A) of the
GST Act provides for recovery of the taxes from
the business of the death person if the same is
being carried on by his legal representative or
any other person. Section 93(1)(b) of the GST
Act states that the dues of the death person
can be recovered from the estate of the
deceased if the business is discontinued. This
provision essentially relates to recovery of tax
and other amounts due against a death
person. This provision does not deal with
however assessment is to be carried out
against a death person after he has passed
away.
6. It is settled law that the assessments and
other proceedings can only be initiated against
the persons who are living and such
proceedings against death person would not be
valid. However, the fact remains that,
under Section 93 of the GST Act, the dues
of the death person can be recovered
either from the business he had set up or
from his estate. In such circumstances, in the
absences of any provision, this Court would
have to be hold that the only practicable way of
settling the affairs of the death person would
be to direct the assessment being carried out
by involving either the representative or person
carrying on the business of a death person or
which such business is not being carried on, by
involving the legal representative who be
holding the estate of the deceased person.
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 26 of 30
7. In the said circumstances, since the petitioner
is the legal representative of the deceased
person, being his son, it would be appropriate
to set aside the impugned order, dated
25.01.2024, with a direction to carry out a
fresh assessment after involving the petitioner
herein, by issuing a notice to the petitioner.
Needless to say, any recovery that may be
initiated, after an Order of assessment, shall
be only against the estate of a deceased
person and against the petitioner to the extent
of the estate of his deceased father, which is
available to the petitioner.‖
7.9. There is no dispute that Manoranjan Mohapatra,
proprietor of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers expired on
24.11.2022 and such fact was made known to the GST
Organisation even prior to issue of Summary Show
Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 26.09.2025
and Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2025
(Annexure-1) and Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025
(Annexure-2) was passed despite being conscious of the
fact that such order is being made against a dead
person. In view of provisions of Section 93 of the GST
Act and bearing in mind the afore-noted decisions, the
action of the Assistant Commissioner of GST and
Central Excise, Cuttack-I Division, Cuttack cannot be
defended and the notice and the order against a dead
person cannot be sustained as they are rendered non est
in the eye of law. The Show Cause Notice as well as the
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 27 of 30
Order-in-Original, being inexplicable, is liable to be set
aside.
8. Ergo, since Order-in-Original (Annexure-2) has been
passed in pursuance of the Show Cause Notice
(Annexure-1) under Section 73 of the GST Act against a
dead person without issuing notice to the legal
representative(s), the same cannot be sustained and they
are hereby quashed.
8.1. At paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is asserted by the
petitioner as follows:
―That as the legal heirs of late Manoranjan Mohapatra
have decided to continue the proprietorship concern in the
name of Jyotiranjan Mohapatra as a legal heir and
accordingly Sri Jyotiranjan Mohapatra applied for
amendment of non-core fields in registration particular in
Form GST REG-14 which was approved on 20.06.2023.‖8.2. As it is admitted fact by the petitioner, one of the legal
heirs/representatives, that he has been continuing with
the business of the deceased proprietor, namely
Manoranjan Mohapatra, by using same GSTIN, i.e.,
21AGEPM8738K1Z5, which was assigned to M/s. J.S.
Enterprisers, in view of Section 93 of the GST Act, the
GST Organisation has the remedy available to it by
initiating appropriate proceeding against the petitioner-
proprietor.
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 28 of 30
9. In the wake of the above, the Summary of Show Cause
Notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 26.09.2025
accompanied by Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated
25.09.2025 (Annexure-1) and the Order dated
29.12.2025 along with Order-in-Original dated
29.12.2025 (Annexure-2) raising a demand under
Section 73 in terms of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017, pertaining to Financial Year
2021-22 (covering tax periods from 01.04.2021 to
31.03.2022) being quashed, the Assistant
Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Cuttack-I
Division, Cuttack/Proper Officer, is at liberty to take
appropriate proceeding by issue of notice to the
petitioner representing the interest of other legal
heirs/legal representatives of the deceased-Manoranjan
Mohapatra and proceed in accordance with law.
9.1. It is clarified that the facts discussed herein above are
referred to and relied on as were available on record for
the purpose of adjudication of the issue raised in the
writ petition. Such facts are not to be construed as
expression of opinion of this Court touching the merit of
the determination of liability of the “proprietor” of M/s.
J.S. Enterprisers.
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 29 of 30
9.2. In the event the Proper Officer/Competent Authority
issues notice for the purpose of adjudication of liability
with respect to transactions of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers
relating to Financial Year 2021-22, if so advised, it is
open for the petitioner to take all such grounds and/or
raise issues before the Adjudicating Authority, who shall
be obligated to deal with all such aspects and pass
appropriate reasoned order.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of and pending Interlocutory Application(s), if
any, shall be deemed to have been disposed of.
(HARISH TANDON)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 22nd July, 2026//Aswini/Laxmikant
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal
Assistant (Secretary in charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Jul-2026 14:33:38
WP(C) No.13452 of 2026 Page 30 of 30
