Post-Death GST Liability: The Scope of Section 93 of the CGST Act
The established legal maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” embodies the principle that a cause of action founded upon the personal conduct of an individual ordinarily comes to an end with that individual. The application of this principle, however, assumes particular significance in the context of fiscal legislation, where statutory provisions may expressly provide for the determination and recovery of liabilities arising from the acts of a deceased taxpayer.
In Jaiwanti v. Union of India & Ors (2026: DHC:8282-DB), the Delhi High Court considered the statutory and constitutional dimensions of such post-death liability. The principal issue before the Court was whether proceedings for determination of a GST penalty could be initiated against the legal representative after the death of the person whose alleged conduct constituted the basis of the proposed liability, and whether such a statutory mechanism withstands scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Section 93 of the CGST Act: Liability After Death
Section 93(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 establishes a specific mechanism for dealing with tax, interest and penalty liabilities following the death of a taxable person. The provision distinguishes between circumstances in which the business is continued after death and those in which it is discontinued:
- Continuation of business Section 93(1)(a): Where the business is continued after the death of the taxpayer by the legal representative or any other person, such person becomes liable for the tax, interest or penalty due under the CGST Act.
- Discontinuation of business Section 93(1)(b): Where the business is discontinued, the legal representative is liable to pay the tax, interest or penalty out of the estate of the deceased, but only to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge.
Significantly, Section 93 expressly contemplates a liability which is determined after his death. In Jaiwanti, the Show Cause Notice was issued more than three years after the death of the petitioner’s husband and proposed penalties under Section 122(3)(a) of the CGST Act for aiding or abetting specified contraventions allegedly committed by him. The petitioner challenged Section 93(1)(b), contending that post-death proceedings placed an unreasonable burden upon the legal representative.
Judicial Approach: Distinguishing Personal Culpability from Estate Liability
The Division Bench rejected the constitutional challenge and drew a distinction between establishing the alleged contravention attributable to the deceased and enforcing the resulting pecuniary liability against the estate.
The Court emphasised that Section 93 does not deem the legal representative to have committed the alleged contravention. The underlying liability must independently arise from the conduct attributable to the deceased and must be established through the statutory adjudicatory process. Section 93 merely provides the mechanism through which such liability may, subject to the prescribed conditions, be determined after death and enforced against the estate.
The Court further observed that Section 126(3) provides an effective opportunity of hearing. The inability of the legal representative to provide a personal account of matters known to the deceased cannot, by itself, be treated as an admission of the alleged contravention. The adjudicating authority remains required to establish the underlying contravention and the conditions governing representative liability.
The limitation contained in Section 93(1)(b), whereby recovery is confined to the estate and only to the extent of its capacity to meet the charge, was also material to the Court’s analysis. On this basis, the Court held that the provision was neither discriminatory nor manifestly arbitrary on the grounds advanced.
Accordingly, the Court held that the expression “is determined after his death” permits proceedings to be commenced after the taxpayer’s death. The CGST Act does not require an SCN to have been issued during the lifetime of the deceased as a condition precedent to such determination.
Concluding Perspective: Survival of Fiscal Liability Beyond Death
The decision in Jaiwanti provides a clear distinction between personal culpability and statutory estate liability. The maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona underscores the principle that personal wrongdoing cannot simply be attributed to a legal representative by succession. Section 93 of the CGST Act, however, expressly creates a statutory mechanism through which a liability attributable to the deceased may be determined after death and enforced against the estate, subject to the conditions prescribed by the statute.
The judgment therefore affirms that the death of a taxpayer does not, by itself, extinguish a liability capable of determination under Section 93. At the same time, the legal representative does not become personally liable for the alleged conduct of the deceased; the exposure under Section 93(1)(b) remains confined to the estate and subject to procedural safeguards and statutory limitations.
