JUDGMENT : The writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 to P6 assessment orders, Ext.P11 rectification order and Exts.P7, P9 and P12 revenue recovery notices. The essential facts, which led to the filing of the writ petition, are as under :- The petitioner's brother-in-law (sister's husband) P.V.Venkiteswaran was an assessee on the rolls of the 7th respondent. Sri.P.V.Venkiteswaran was assessed for Central Sales Tax for the year 2005-06, as per Ext.P1 order. The assessee filed an appeal against Ext.P1 and on the matter being remanded by the appellate authority, the 7th respondent issued Ext.P2 assessment order. For the assessment year 2006-07, Ext.P3 assessment order was issued. Both Exts.P2 and P3 orders, are dated 06.10.2014. The assessee died on 08.10.2014 and thereupon, his wife Janaki challenged Exts.P2 and P3 before this Court. By judgment dated 11.06.2015 in W.P.(C) No.15657 of 2015, this Court set aside the assessment order and directed reconsideration of the matter. Before completion of the proceedings, Smt.Janaki died on 14.07.2015. Faced with such a situation, the 7th respondent called for a report from the Tahasildar concerned as to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee and his wife. It was reported that the petitioner is the only brother of deceased Janaki and was, hence, the sole legal heir. The 7th respondent therefore issued notice to the petitioner under Section 6 (5) of the CST Act, terming the petitioner to be the legal heir of deceased P.V.Venkiteswaran. By the notice, the petitioner was called upon to file his objection against the assessment proceedings and he did so. Later, he was served with Ext.P4 assessment order dated 30.12.2016 and Ext.P5 order dated 05.01.2017, pertaining to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. As per Ext.P6, assessment for the year 2007-08 was completed in the name of Sri.Venkiteswaran, but the order was served on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since he is not the legal heir of Sri.P.V.Venkiteswaran and was not liable to satisfy the demands based on the assessment orders, he did not challenge Exts.P4 to P6 orders. By Exts.P7, P8 and P9, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the amounts due under Exts.P4 to P6 orders. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P11 rectification order dated 28.10.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P12 revenue recovery notice dated 16.02.2019. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri. By Exts.P7, P8 and P9, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the amounts due under Exts.P4 to P6 orders. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P11 rectification order dated 28.10.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P12 revenue recovery notice dated 16.02.2019. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Govindan, learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment orders and consequential recovery proceedings are per se illegal and void, inasmuch as the petitioner is not the legal heir of the assessee or his wife and has not inherited their proprieties. Reference is made to Sections 8, 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to contend that the petitioner will not fall among the different classes of legal heirs. It is further submitted that late P.V.Venkiteswaran had four brothers and five sisters and had sold 5 cents out of his self-acquired property with building thereon to his nephew. The remaining 4 cents of land along with residential house still stands in the name of P.V. Venkiteswaran. 4. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, late P.V.Venkiteswaran and Janaki were in possession of 1.5 Ares of property and a building in Perumbavoor. On enquiry through the Village authorities, it was revealed that the petitioner is the only relative of Janaki, who was the only surviving legal heir of P.V.Venkiteswaran, since the couple had no children. It is submitted that the petitioner had co-operated with the Department for completing the assessment. It is contended that the recovery proceedings having been initiated against the properties of the assessee and his wife, based on valid assessment orders, the petitioner has no legal right to oppose the recovery. 5. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the heirs specified in class I of the Schedule. As far as late P.V.Venkiteswaran is concerned, his wife Janaki alone was a class I heir. Section 15 deals with General Rules of Succession in the case of a female Hindu. As per Section 15(1), the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16. As far as late P.V.Venkiteswaran is concerned, his wife Janaki alone was a class I heir. Section 15 deals with General Rules of Succession in the case of a female Hindu. As per Section 15(1), the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16. But, under Section 15(2)(b), any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased, not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. Going by Section 8, upon the death of P.V.Venkiteswaran his property had devolved on his wife Janaki and on the death of Janaki, the property inherited by her from her husband, will devolve only upon the heirs of the husband, as provided under Section 15 (2) (b). Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the properties of the deceased assessee and his wife would not devolve on him. Moreover, under no circumstance can the assessment orders be issued in the name of the petitioner, for and on behalf of the deceased assessee. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the properties of the assessee and his wife for realisation of the amounts due under the assessment orders. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i) Exts.P4 to P6 and P11 orders are quashed, to the extent they tend to treat the petitioner as the representative/legal heir of the assessee late P.V.Venkiteswaran, thereby mulcting the petitioner with the liability of remitting tax. (ii) Exts.P7 to P9 and P12 revenue recovery notices are quashed. (iii) The respondents will be free to proceed against the properties of the deceased assessee and his wife for realisation of the amounts due under Exts.P4 to P6 and P11 orders.