The Gauhati High Court has set aside a tax demand order issued against a deceased proprietor, terming the proceedings as a “nullity.”

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi has observed that  even after the death of Late Anil Borgohain on 17.09.2021, on behalf of Late Anil Borgohain the petitioner continued to file the returns and as such, the department was completely unaware of the death of Late Anil Borgohain.

The case involved Sikha Borgohain, daughter of late Anil Borgohain, who challenged the original GST order dated August 29, 2024, and the summary order dated August 30, 2024. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, while hearing the writ petition, noted that the tax authorities had issued a show cause notice on May 28, 2024, for the FY 2019–20 without being aware of Anil Borgohain’s death on September 17, 2021.

Anil Borgohain, proprietor of M/s Anil Borgohain, had been registered under GST since July 1, 2017. The impugned order had demanded ₹39,82,924 as outstanding tax with interest and penalties. After his death, his daughter continued to file GST returns on behalf of the business, inadvertently keeping the department unaware of his passing.

The Court held that any proceedings initiated against a dead person are legally void. However, it acknowledged that the GST authorities were not informed of the death in time. Consequently, Justice Medhi directed that the show cause notice and the impugned demand order be quashed.

The Court allowed tax authorities to issue a fresh notice to legal heirs under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, clarifying that the period from May 28, 2024, to the date of receipt of the High Court’s order would be excluded while computing the limitation period for issuing such notices.

Case Details

Case Title: Sikha Borgohain Versus UOI

Case No.: Case No. : WP(C)/4535/2025

Date: 11.08.2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: P BORDOLOI, MS M NIROLA

Counsel For Respondent:  DY.S.G.I., SC, GST,SC, FINANCE

Read More: Denial Of ITC On Security Services under RCM Upheld: Bombay High Court