ADDEPALLI SRAVANTHI v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Mr. K. Chethan, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing respondent Nos.1 to 4. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Aggrieved by the Show-Cause-Notice dated 20.01.2024 and subsequent Order in Original dated 16.04.2024 passed by the 4th respondent against proprietary concern M/s. Sri Dattatreya Engineering Company / Nagaveera Venkatasatya Chandrasekhar Addepalli, the present writ petition is filed.

As per the averments made in the affidavit, the husband of the deponent is proprietor of M/s. Sri Dattatreya Engineering Company / Nagaveera Venkatasatya Chandrasekhar Addepalli and he expired on

17.05.2021. Respondent authorities issued Show-Cause-Notice dated

20.01.2024 and passed impugned assessment order on 16.04.2024, since the husband of the petitioner was proprietor looking after the financial activities of the business, issuance of Show-Cause-Notice and impugned order was not within the knowledge of the deponent. Be that as it may. 4

Against the assessment order, statutory appeal was filed, but the same was rejected vide Endorsement dated 16.03.2026 on the premise that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute i.e., A.P. GST Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that though the factum of death of the proprietor, who was the person looking after the affairs of the business and that deponent is not aware of the proceedings under GST Act, much less, impugned order was urged, the appellate authority has merely rejected the appeal without considering the relevant aspects. That apart, he submits that no reference has been made in the impugned proceedings to the legal representative of the deceased. Placing reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6029 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025, learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

Per contra, Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned order. He submits that as the appeal was filed with a delay, the same was rightly rejected by the appellate authority, therefore, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. Further, the same without availing statutory remedies is not sustainable.

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 5

Death certificate dated 23.06.2021 (Ex.P.6) indicates that Adepalli N.V.V.S Chandra Sekhar purportedly the proprietor of the writ petitioner died on 17.05.2021, i.e., much prior to passing of Show-Cause-Notice and impugned order dated 16.04.2024. It is settled position that an order passed against dead person does not have any legal efficacy. As the original assessment order itself is non-est in the eye of Law, the order/Endorsement of respondent No.3 dated 16.03.2026 is also not tenable.

At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of decision in W.P.No.6029 of 2025, which is applicable to the present facts:- “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 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. involving either

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.” 6

In the light of above said decision and the conclusion arrived at supra, all proceedings pursuant to Show-Cause-Notice dated 20.01.2024 and order dated 16.04.2024 are set aside. Rejection Endorsement dated 16.03.2026 emanating from the assessment proceedings is also not sustainable since the original order itself is non est in Law. Therefore, the same is declared invalid.

Needless to say that the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J GVK 7 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No. 22909 OF 2026 Dt. 13.08.2026 GVK