$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13266/2024 & CM APPL. 55409/2024 M/S AGGARWAL TELECOM AND STATIONERS (LEGAL NAME PRALAD RAI AGGARWAL )THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIR VIKAS KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta & Mr. Saurabh Dahiya, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. K. G. Gopalakrishnan with Mr.

Girish Kaul, Advs.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 04.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Aggarwal Telecom and Stationers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging inter alia the Show Cause Notice dated 10^th December, 2023 bearing Ref. No. ZD071223050000A (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) and the corresponding order dated 4^th April, 2024 bearing Ref.

No.ZD070424009763G (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’).

3. In this case, the Petitioner firm is a sole proprietary concern of late Mr. Pralad Rai Aggarwalwho passed away on 5^th November,2022.The SCN was issued upon the Petitioner after the demise of Mr. Pralad Rai Aggarwal and subsequently, the impugned order was passed.

4. The question that was raised for consideration on behalf of the Petitioner was that the SCN dated 10^th December, 2023 was issued to the deceased proprietor and the impugned order dated 4^th April, 2024 has also been passed against the deceased proprietor. Hence, it is not tenable.

5. Mr. Gopalakrishnan, ld. Senior Standing Counsel was to take instructions in the matter.

6. Today, both the ld. Counsels have been heard. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an application for cancellation of the GST registration on 28^th April, 2023 in which the DepartmentwasfullyinformedthattheproprietorofthePetitionerhaspassed away. The cancellation vide the said application was sought with effect from 31^st March, 2023. The last return was also filed for the financial year 2022-23 by the Petitioner.

7. The Petitioner again filed an application for cancellation of the GST registration on 6^th September, 2024. Certain clarifications were sought by the Department which were not given due to which the applications for cancellation were rejected.

8. Parallelly, a SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 10^th December, 2023 on the ground that no returns were filed for the financial year 2018-19. Certain other demands were also raised against the Petitioner. This SCN was addressed to Mr. Pralad Rai Aggarwal who was the sole proprietor of the Petitioner.However,hehadalreadypassedawaybythesaiddateandnoreply was filed leading to the impugned order dated 4^th April, 2024 being passed against the deceased proprietor.

9. Mr. Gopalakrishnan, ld. Counsel again submits that the Petitioner had a duty to inform the names of the legal heirs of the proprietor of the Petitioner and the application for the same should have been filed manually which was not done.

10. It is the settled position in law as captured in the decision in W.P.(C) 1087/2025titledHarshGoel(LegalHeirofLt.Sh.PushkarGoelProprietor of M/s Nand Plastics Industries) v. GST Officer/AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6 Delhi & Anr. dated 17^th November, 2025 that the SCN cannot be issued to a person who has passed away.

11. For whatever reasons the Petitioner may have not filed the details of legal heirs but in the initial application itself for cancellation filed on 28^th April, 2023, however, it was clearly recorded that the proprietor had passed away.

12. Under these circumstances, the SCN dated 10^th December, 2023 and the subsequent impugned order dated 4^th April, 2024 which have been issued against the deceased-proprietor cannot stand and the same are accordingly set aside. This would, however, not bar the Department from taking any action, if so, permissible in law as per Section 93(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) or any other provision of the applicable statutes in respect of the Petitioner’s business qua any ot