PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchYes. In Jaiwanti v Union of India, decided on 25 September 2026, the Delhi High Court held that Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can permit GST proceedings to begin after a taxpayer’s death, even if no show-cause notice was issued during the taxpayer’s lifetime. The ruling does not automatically make a legal representative personally liable or prove the deceased’s alleged tax contravention; the statutory conditions and ordinary procedural safeguards still matter.
What the Delhi High Court decided
The question in Jaiwanti v Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 7254/2025, was whether Section 93(1)(b)’s reference to a liability “determined after his death” allows a determination to begin after death, or only lets authorities finish proceedings begun while the taxpayer was alive. The Court adopted the first reading: Section 93 itself can authorize post-death proceedings if its conditions are met. It did not require a lifetime show-cause notice. Read the Delhi High Court judgment.
The Court rejected the constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) on the grounds argued. It did not decide that Jaiwanti Dabas owed a penalty, that the Department had proved the alleged conduct, or that every condition for applying Section 93 was satisfied. Nor did the three-year interval in this case create a bar under Section 93; the Court expressly left any applicable limitation requirement intact.
How Section 93 treats a taxpayer’s death
Section 93(1) addresses a person liable to pay tax, interest or penalty who dies, subject to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The route depends on what happens to the business:
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
| Situation | Who may be liable | Payment source and limit |
|---|---|---|
| Business continues after death — clause (a) | The legal representative or another person who continues the business | Tax, interest or penalty due from the deceased under the Act |
| Business is discontinued — clause (b) | The legal representative | Payment comes out of the deceased’s estate and is limited to the estate’s capacity to meet the charge |
For a discontinued business, clause (b) covers liabilities determined before death but left unpaid, as well as liabilities determined after death. The branches have different conditions and consequences. Section 93 does not, by itself, deem the representative to have committed the deceased’s alleged wrong or create an independent penalty against that representative.
Why the case arose
The dispute grew out of a Directorate General of GST Intelligence investigation into alleged fraudulent availment and passing on of Input Tax Credit and IGST refunds through invoices said to lack corresponding supplies. The show-cause notice attributed the alleged conduct to Ankit Dabas in connection with three entities. A search of his Dwarka residence on 23 July 2020 found ₹15,40,000, which the notice described as voluntarily submitted and kept in a fixed deposit during the investigation.
Dabas died on 6 May 2021, and the Department was informed in October 2021. On 31 July 2024, the Department issued a show-cause notice to several noticees, including his wife, Jaiwanti Dabas, invoking Section 93 against her as legal representative and proposing a penalty in connection with her late husband’s alleged acts.
The order-in-original dated 1 February 2025 contained conflicting operative language: one clause imposed a ₹1,50,000 penalty, while the next said no penalty was imposed and included confusing language about the cash. Jaiwanti said she had not received the notice or participated in adjudication; the Department disputed non-service.
What Section 93 does—and does not do
It provides a route to determine the deceased’s liability
The Court read “is determined after his death” according to its text and declined to add a requirement that proceedings must have started during the taxpayer’s lifetime. The underlying liability must still be attributable to the deceased under the CGST Act’s substantive provisions. An investigation begun before death is not the source of the authority to make a post-death determination; that authority comes from Section 93.
It does not make the representative guilty
The distinction matters especially where the proposed liability involves a penalty. The Court distinguished Section 93 from Section 122(3)(a): Section 122 provides a substantive penalty provision for specified aiding or abetting conduct, while Section 93 provides a route for determining and enforcing a deceased person’s attributable liability through a representative, subject to its conditions. A representative’s role does not itself establish participation in the alleged contravention.
It does not eliminate a fair hearing
The representative must receive the material relied upon and a genuine opportunity to contest the alleged contravention, the legal basis for liability and the proposed amount. The Court referred to Section 126’s hearing safeguards and recognized the right of appeal. A representative’s inability to give a personal account of the deceased’s affairs cannot be treated as an admission.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Questions that remain fact-specific
Jaiwanti settled the legal interpretation of Section 93(1)(b) and rejected the constitutional challenge as argued, but left the case’s notice-service and merits disputes for the statutory appeal. Applying the decision to another notice requires examining, at minimum:
Best Value
- Whether the business continued after death or was discontinued, and who continued it or represents the estate.
- For clause (b), what assets are in the estate and the extent to which they can meet the charge.
- Whether the notice was properly served and the representative received the material relied upon.
- Whether the alleged contravention and any proposed penalty are established under the substantive provisions.
- Whether the applicable limitation period has been met.
These are not automatic answers supplied by the ruling. The Court left them to the relevant proceedings and, where applicable, appeal.
The Court’s directions about the cash
The Court did not decide the disputed circumstances in which the ₹15,40,000 was taken. It directed the Department to provide a complete accounting, including the fixed-deposit status and interest, and identify the precise statutory authority and order relied upon for any retention or appropriation. Jaiwanti could respond; the competent authority was to provide a hearing and issue a reasoned decision. Any amount without a continuing lawful basis was to be released with the interest actually earned in the fixed deposit. These directions did not resolve the conflicting clauses in the order-in-original.
What Jaiwanti was told to do next
The Bench did not resolve Jaiwanti’s disputed objections in the writ petition. It directed her to pursue the remaining objections through the statutory appeal and gave her four weeks to institute it, with protection against rejection on limitation grounds if she filed within that period. That case-specific direction is not a general extension for other taxpayers or representatives.
If you receive a GST notice concerning a deceased taxpayer, do not assume that the notice is invalid simply because it arrived after death—or that it makes you personally liable. Check the notice, service record, statutory basis, estate and business circumstances, and applicable deadlines promptly with a qualified GST professional. The judgment is not a substitute for advice on an individual notice.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
