Yasir Rahuman vs State Tax Officer - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42121

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Yasir Rahuman – Appellant
Versus
State Tax Officer – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10453 and 10454 of 2026

Important Points

An assessment order passed against a deceased sole proprietor is a nullity and void in law, and fresh proceedings must be initiated against the legal heirs.

Subject

Tax Law - Goods and Services Tax

Act Referred

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: S.73
Constitution of India: Art.226

Headnote

The petitioner challenged an assessment order issued under S.73 of the Act against a proprietorship concern. The facts revealed that the proprietor had passed away prior to the passing of the impugned order. The Court observed that an assessment order issued against a deceased individual is non-est in law and a nullity. The core issue was whether an assessment order could be sustained when issued against a deceased assessee. The Court reasoned that since the legal personality of the sole proprietor ceased upon death, the order passed subsequently was void ab initio, necessitating that proceedings be carried out against the legal heirs. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and liberty was granted to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs via physical service.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Sakthi Siddharth
For the Respondents: R. Suresh Kumar

Table of Content
1. an assessment order issued against a deceased individual is void and a nullity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER

This writ petition challenges the impugned order of assessment dated

29.01.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that AR Rahman Spices is a proprietorship concern run by one S.Majeeth. The proprietor of the said firm, namely, S.Majeeth, died on 30.06.2023. However, the impugned order came to be passed subsequent to his death and, as such, the same is a nullity.

3. In view thereof, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 is quashed. However, the respondent is at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the legal heirs of the deceased and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Needless to state, since it is submitted that the legal heirs do not have access to the online portal, any show cause notice, if issued, shall be served in physical form. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 30.04.2026 NCC : No (4/6)