Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes GST Orders Issued Against Deceased Sole Proprietor, Remands Matter Under Section 93(1)(b) of CGST Act

Background and Context

When a sole proprietor dies, what happens to pending or subsequent GST proceedings initiated in the name of that deceased individual? This critical question of procedural validity under the Goods and Services Tax framework came before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of B.Nagendra Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes). The Court's ruling reinforces that tax authorities cannot simply continue or finalize assessment proceedings as if the registered person were still alive — and that the Appellate Authority is equally bound to take cognizance of such a fundamental fact before rejecting appeals.

Facts of the Case

One Mr. B. Hanumantha Reddy was the sole proprietor of M/s. Sri Rama Jyothi Saw Mill, registered under the GST framework on the rolls of the first respondent authority. He passed away on 08.08.2020 due to critical illness at NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

Following his death, his son — B. Nagendra Reddy — stepped in as the legal representative of the deceased proprietor and filed the present writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The writ petition challenged Assessment Proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.04.2023, which had been initiated and finalized well after the proprietor's death.

The legal representative had earlier filed appeals before the Appellate Authority covering tax periods 2017-18 to 2022-23, specifically raising the ground that the proprietor had died before the assessment order was passed. Those appeals were collectively rejected through a Common Order dated 16.04.2026, prompting the son to approach the High Court challenging both the original assessment proceedings and the appellate order.

Arguments Advanced by Both Sides

Petitioner's Contentions

Counsel for the petitioner advanced the following principal arguments before the Court:

  • The assessment proceedings dated 20.04.2023 were issued against a dead and non-existing person, rendering them legally void and non-est in the eyes of law.
  • Since the underlying assessment order was itself invalid, the appellate order dismissing the challenge to such proceedings was equally unsustainable.
  • In analogous situations, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously entertained writ petitions and granted relief by setting aside orders of assessment.

In support of these contentions, petitioner's counsel placed reliance on:

  • Kali Shankar Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner & Ors., W.P.No.31675 of 2023, order dated 18.12.2023 — cited to demonstrate that the High Court had entertained similar challenges where proceedings were initiated in the name of deceased persons.
  • D.Subhasini Devi v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors., W.P.No.5325 of 2026 & batch, order dated 25.02.2026 — cited as a further precedent involving comparable facts and circumstances.

Revenue's Objections

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 4, resisted the writ petition on the following grounds: