2019 (5) TMI 592 - AT - Service Tax

Demand from deceased person - Ld. Counsel before passing the adjudication order the appellant had died in such circumstances, no order should have been passed against the deceased person - HELD THAT - The impugned order was passed against deceased person i.e. the Proprietor appellant. The law does not provide to proceed in any case against a deceased person, therefore, the order passed by the adjudicating authority is not legal and correct. The impugned order passed against a deceased person will not sustain - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Passing of order against a deceased person
- Legality of order passed after the demise of the noticee

Analysis:

Issue 1: Passing of order against a deceased person
The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant, who was a proprietor and had passed away before the order was issued, should not have been subject to the adjudication order. The counsel relied on various judgments to support this argument. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, noted that the law does not allow proceedings against a deceased person. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was indeed passed against the deceased proprietor, which is not legally permissible. Citing previous judgments with similar circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that orders passed against deceased persons are not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order against the deceased person was set aside, and the appeal was allowed solely on this ground without delving into the merits of the case.

This issue highlights the importance of legal principles regarding proceedings against deceased individuals and the necessity to adhere to such principles in adjudication processes.

Issue 2: Legality of order passed after the demise of the noticee
The Tribunal emphasized that the order passed after the demise of the noticee, in this case, the deceased proprietor, was not legally valid. The Tribunal's decision was based on the established legal position that proceedings cannot continue against a deceased person. By setting aside the impugned order on this ground, the Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that legal actions against deceased individuals are not permissible. This aspect of the judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that legal proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law and cannot be pursued against deceased parties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding legal principles and procedural fairness, particularly in cases involving deceased individuals. The judgment reinforces the notion that legal actions against deceased persons are untenable and must be set aside in accordance with established legal precedents.