The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chennai has dismissed a revenue appeal after holding that proceedings cannot continue following the death of a sole proprietor, in line with Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
The Bench comprising Member (Technical) M. Ajit Kumar and Member (Judicial) Ajayan T.V. held that a power of attorney holder cannot be treated as the beneficial owner post the proprietor’s death. The Tribunal noted that the department’s submissions during the hearing could not improve upon the original show cause notice or appeal memorandum, which had only named Unik Traders as the respondent.
The appeal stemmed from allegations of mis-declaration of the country of origin to claim ineligible duty benefits under ISFTA/SAFTA. The department had sought to continue the case, arguing that the firm was still active and that the power of attorney holder should be treated as the beneficial owner.
During the hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the sole proprietor of Unik Traders, Hanif Thara, had passed away on June 21, 2025. Legal heirs submitted his death certificate and requested abatement of the proceedings. The department, however, sought to continue the appeal, arguing that the firm remained active and that the Power of Attorney holder, Asif Thara, was the “beneficial owner” and should be treated as the respondent.
Citing Supreme Court’s ruling in Shabina Abraham vs Collector of Central Excise & Customs (2015) and a recent Madras High Court judgment in S. Hidayathullah (Died) vs Commissioner of Customs (2025), the Tribunal observed, “Tax laws are made by the living to tax the living. No proceedings can be initiated or continued against a dead person in the absence of enabling statutory provisions.”
The Bench also underscored that, under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, proceedings automatically abate upon the death of a respondent unless a proper application for continuation is filed by the legal representatives. As no such application had been made by the department, the appeal could not survive.
The Tribunal accordingly disposed of the appeal and related applications, reiterating that revenue authorities cannot revive charges against a deceased assessee indirectly through power of attorney holders.
Case Details
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus Unik Traders
Case No.: Customs Miscellaneous Application (EH) No. 40700 of 2025 And Customs Miscellaneous Application (Stay) No. 40701 of 2025 and Customs Appeal No. 40796 of 2023
Date: 21.07.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Anoop Singh
Counsel For Respondent: None
Read More: Bombay High Court Stays Tax Demand Against Municipal Corporation Over TDS on TDR Issuance
