With the death of the proprietor legally the business also ends with him, however the GST law provides a facility whereby the legal heirs can continue the business if they desire so and has provided with a detailed instructions on how such transfer shall take place. In the event of death of the proprietor its legal heirs have an option of either continuing the business or discontinuing.
2)If option exercised by the legal heirs is that they will continue the business of the deceased then the following will be applicable: As per Section 29 the registration of the deceased is still liable to be cancelled. Steps to be taken by the Legal Heirs: – 1. Apply for fresh registration citing reason as Death of Proprietor and Date on which liability arises as Date of death of deceased.
3)2. Section 29 allows legal heirs to file application for cancellation. Therefore, legal heirs will have to get themselves registered as Authorised Signatories in GSTIN of the deceased
. 3. To be added as Authorised Signatories Amendment in Registration will not be done by the legal heirs themselves but will have to approach the jurisdictional officer. (Section 28 read with Rule 19 allows only registered person to apply for amendment registration)
4. Legal Heirs will have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased (Legal Heirs are defined in the personnel laws as enforced on the date).
5. Transfer the business 6. Transfer ITC in the credit ledger of the deceased to the new registration by filing ITC-02 7. Apply for cancellation of the registration of deceased within 30 days and file GSTR10
. In CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta (supra) the case of the assessee was that on the death of sole proprietor the legal heirs forming partnership firm and issue was whether the firm succeeded in the business of sole proprietor, assessee is entitled to carry forward loss of sole proprietor and to set off against the income of the firm. The Gujarat High Court has taken the view as under :
"(i) that the presence of the three factors found by the Income Tax Officer was not necessarily destructive of the integrity or identity of the business so as to negative the idea of succession; (ii) that the facts showed that M had died intestate. Under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act his property would devolve, firstly, upon the heirs being relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule. Son, daughter and widow are included in Class I. There was a clear recital in the partnership deed that the partners as heirs succeeded to the business of the deceased. The business of the deceased had been carried on even prior to the execution of the partnership deed and the partnership was brought into existence within a very short period after M's death. Having regard to all the circumstances there was succession by inheritance in this case. Merely because M's legal heirs brought into existence a firm and decided to carry on the same business under the firm name, the succession by inheritance was not lost or destroyed. The link or nexus between the business carried on by the deceased and after his death by his heirs previously as a body of heirs and subsequently as a collection of persons joined with each other by the bond of partnership was not lost either in substance or in form and the business, which the firm carried on, still remained the same business which was succeeded to by inheritance by the heirs who were partners. The assessee-firm was entitled to carry forward and set off the speculation losses of M against the income from speculation business earned during the relevant assessment years."
The view taken by the Gujarat High Court in (1981) 132 ITR 159 (Guj) (supra) has been upheld by the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta (2001) 247 ITR 805 (SC).