1. Case Title
Rishi Shangari vs. Union of India & Others
W.P.(T) No. 523 of 2023
Date of Judgment: 15 April 2025
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Summary of Facts
The petitioner, Rishi Shangari, challenged an order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 3), which sought to fasten GST liability on him for dues allegedly arising from the business of his deceased father, Late Navtej Kumar Shangari, under the proprietary concern M/s N. Kumar and Company.
The key timeline:
- Petitioner's father died on 13.02.2018.
- GST registration was obtained in the father’s name on 17.07.2018 (with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017).
- The petitioner obtained a fresh registration in his own name on 24.03.2018.
- A summons and subsequent demand were issued against the deceased in 2022 despite the tax authority being informed of his death.
- No material was provided by authorities to justify the finding that the petitioner continued the business of his father’s proprietary concern.
3. Key Issues
- Whether GST liability can be imposed on a legal heir under Section 93(1)(a) of the CGST Act without establishing that the heir continued the business of the deceased.
- Whether proceedings initiated against a deceased individual are legally sustainable.
4. Decision/Outcome
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2022, finding it legally untenable and unsupported by evidence.
5. Reasoning behind the Decision
The Court observed that:
- The petitioner had duly informed the authorities of his father’s death, enclosing a death certificate.
- He had applied for and obtained a new GST registration in his own name, indicating a distinct legal identity.
- The order under challenge failed to provide any material or basis to show that the petitioner continued his father's business.
- Imposing liability without such proof was perverse and unsustainable, rendering the impugned order liable to be quashed.
6. Impact/Implications of the Decision
This judgment reinforces the requirement of substantive evidence before invoking successor liability under tax laws. It sets a precedent that mere legal succession or blood relation does not automatically establish tax liability unless continuity of business is proven. The case strengthens procedural safeguards for legal heirs and upholds principles of natural justice when enforcing recovery under the CGST regime.