VINODBHAI SHAMJIBHAI SAGPARIYA LR OF SHAMJIBHAI JINABHAI SAGPARIYA @ KANUBHAI JINABHAI SAGPARIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(1)(1) RKT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the notices and orders issued by the respondent authority to the deceased assessee, subsequent to the department being informed of the death and approving the legal heir's request, were void ab initio. The court found that the show cause notice was issued on March 10, 2022, long after the deceased passed away on August 20, 2017, and after the department had acknowledged and approved the legal heir's request on March 30, 2019. Therefore, any notice issued thereafter was considered invalid. The court allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside the assessment order dated March 22, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16, and all consequential notices. The ratio decidendi is that actions taken against a deceased person after the revenue has knowledge of the death and has recognized the legal heir are null and void.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, as the legal heir of the deceased Shamjibhai Jinabhai Sagpariya, filed a Special Civil Application challenging notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer. The deceased passed away on August 20, 2017. The petitioner communicated the death to the department on March 29, 2019, and their request to be recognized as the legal heir with a specific PAN was allowed on March 30, 2019. Despite this, the respondent authority continued to issue notices to the deceased. The petition sought to quash these notices and orders, and stay further recovery proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16. The High Court had previously directed that the assessment process could continue with the petitioner's cooperation, but the final order was to be deferred.
What were the issues?
1. Whether notices and orders issued by the respondent authority to a deceased assessee, after the department was duly informed of the death and the legal heir was recognized, are void ab initio, thereby warranting their quashing under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the department was aware of the assessee's death and had approved the legal heir's representation, any subsequent notices issued to the deceased are invalid. They relied on the decisions in Kanubhai Jinabhai Patel vs. Income-tax Officer and Savita Kapila vs. Assistant Commissioner. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned senior standing counsel, did not dispute the fact that the department had been communicated the death of the assessee well in time and had granted its approval to the legal heir's request.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/SCA/23109/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23109 of 2022 ========================================================== VINODBHAI SHAMJIBHAI SAGPARIYA LR OF SHAMJIBHAI JINABHAI SAGPARIYA @ KANUBHAI JINABHAI SAGPARIYA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(1)(1) RKT ========================================================== Appearance: MR FENIL H MEHTA(11663) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNT RAVAL(1046) ASSISTED BY MR KARAN SHANGANI for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 21/12/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. The action of the respondent since has aggrieved the petitioner, it has approached this Court by way of the present petition where this Court while issuing the notice on 22.11.2022 passed the following order: “1. Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “(a) quash and set aside the impugned notices and orders at Annexure- 'A', 'B1’, ‘B2;’, 'C', 'D1’, ‘D2’, ‘D3’, ‘D4’, ‘D5’', ‘D6’ to this Petition; (b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation Page 1 of 5
C/SCA/23109/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2022 and operation of the orders at Annexure C to this petition and stay further proceedings of recovery for A.Y. 2015-16; (c) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; (d) to provide for the cost of this petition.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the notice is issued to the deceased, who passed away on 20.08.2017. 3. Notice for final disposal, returnable on 13.12.2022. 4. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the process of assessment shall continue with the cooperation of the petitioner, however, the final assessment order shall not be passed before the returnable date. 5. Over and above the regular mode of service, service of notice through e-mode on the official e-mail ID is permitted.” 2. We have heard the learned advocate, Mr.Fenil Mehta for the petitioner, who has drawn the attention of this Court that the Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/23109/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2022 death of the father of the petitioner had been communicated to the department on 29.03.2019, the death had occurred on 20.08.2017. It was a request to allow him to be a legal heir with PAN No.AELPP3476J. The said request had also been allowed on 30.03.2019 and yet the authority concerned had continued to issue the notice upon the death person. 2.1 He has also relied on the decision of this Court in case of Kanubhai Jinabhai Patel vs. Income-tax Officer, reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 580 (Guj.) and also on the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Savita Kapila vs. Assistant Commissioner, reported in [2020] 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi). Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/23109/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2022 3. Learned senior standing counsel, Mr.Raval assisted by the learned advocate, Mr.Karan Sanghani does not dispute the fact of the department having been communicated this well in time on 29.03.2019 and granted its approval of 30.03.2019. 4. The show cause notice has been issued on 10.03.2022 and the father of petitioner (since deceased) had passed away on 20.08.2017, the intimation had already been sent on 29.03.2019 and therefore, any notice subsequent thereto after the respondent had acknowledged the same and had approved the request on 30.03.2019 is void ab initio and hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. We notice that two notices under Page 4 of 5
C/SCA/23109/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2022 Sections 148 and 142(1) of the IT Act and the final show cause notices for the assessment year 2015-16 had been issued, which all culminated into the passing of an assessment order, which is impugned in the present petition. 6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed quashing and setting aside the order of assessment dated 22.03.2022 for the assessment
year
2015-16
and
all consequential notices. 7. Over and above the regular mode of service, direct service through e-mode on official email address is also permitted. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 5 of 5
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
