Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesHimachal Pradesh HC Frowns On AO for Passing Tax Order Against Deceased...

Himachal Pradesh HC Frowns On AO for Passing Tax Order Against Deceased Person, Terms It ‘Nullity in Law’

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has frowned on the Assessing Officer (AO) for passing a tax order against a deceased person and termed it as ‘nullity in law’.

The bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja has observed that despite the factum of death having been brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority, it still proceeded to pass the order which reflects upon the sheer ignorance of law exhibited on the part of the Assessing Officer or upon his pre-determined mind to pass the order even against a dead person which,order to his very knowledge is a nullity in the eyes of law.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed against a dead person i.e Sanjeev Shyam, who was the sole proprietor of M/s V. Eagle Securities Services and he died prior to the issuance of notice dated 14.03.2023, and this fact has otherwise been duly brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority in the reply that was filed by the legal heir of Sanjeev Shyam.

The court set-aside the order in its entirety, leaving all questions of law and facts open. Ordered accordingly, However, these proceedings can not be assigned and conducted by the Officer, who passed the impugned order and therefore direct that the proceedings shall be assigned to some other independent officer.

Case Details

Case Title: V. Eagle Securities Versus Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise & anr.

Case No.: CWP No.7357 of 2025

Date:  13/05/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhinav, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General,with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr.Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General

Read More: GST on Corporate Guarantees Faces Legal Scrutiny: Jindal Stainless Among Petitioners Challenging Taxability and Valuation Rule

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Anti-Dumping Duty on Gear Box Can’t Be Levied on Entire Equipment When Notification Covers Only Castings: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) prescribed on castings used...

CENVAT Credit Can’t Be Denied for Excise Duty Payment During Default Period: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by the Revenue concerning the...

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 14 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 14, 2026.GSTGST DEPT. CANT ADJUST SANCTIONED...

More like this

Anti-Dumping Duty on Gear Box Can’t Be Levied on Entire Equipment When Notification Covers Only Castings: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) prescribed on castings used...

CENVAT Credit Can’t Be Denied for Excise Duty Payment During Default Period: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by the Revenue concerning the...

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...