GST Authorities Can’t Freeze Son’s Bank Account for Deceased Father’s Tax Dues Solely due to Same Trade Name: Bombay HC [Read Order]
The High Court held that GST authorities cannot freeze a son’s bank account for his deceased father’s dues merely because both used the same trade name
![GST Authorities Can’t Freeze Son’s Bank Account for Deceased Father’s Tax Dues Solely due to Same Trade Name: Bombay HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/16/2133338-tax-duesjpg.webp "GST Authorities Can’t Freeze Son’s Bank Account for Deceased Father’s Tax Dues Solely due to Same Trade Name: Bombay HC [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that GST authorities cannot freeze a son’s bank account to recover his deceased father’s tax dues only because both used the same trade name. The case started when the GST department issued a communication to Navin Vishwanathan (petitioner) under Sections 79 and 93 of the CGST Act and directed the bank to recover dues of...
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that GST authorities cannot freeze a son’s bank account to recover his deceased father’s tax dues only because both used the same trade name.
The case started when the GST department issued a communication to Navin Vishwanathan (petitioner) under Sections 79 and 93 of the CGST Act and directed the bank to recover dues of more than Rs. 4.15 crores from the petitioner’s bank account.
These dues were of the petitioner’s deceased father who was running a business in the name “M/s. Oriental Facility.” The petitioner’s bank account was frozen without any prior notice.
The petitioner argued that he was running his own separate business with a different GST registration and a different place of business, even though he used the same trade name. He also argued that no proceedings were started under Section 93 to affix any liability on him and no show cause notice or hearing was given before freezing his account.
The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed that both the petitioner and his father had separate GST registrations and are treated as different taxable persons under GST law.
The court explained that recovery under Section 79 can happen only after liability is properly decided and Section 93 requires proper determination before fixing liability on a legal heir.
The court observed
“the designated officer needs to undertake an exercise to determine in what manner the Petitioner would become liable to discharge the tax dues of his deceased father’s business. It would be difficult to accept a proposition that merely because there is similarity of trade name, this alone would authorise automatic recovery from the Petitioner who is an indirect registered taxable person that too without any prior adjudicatory process”
The court also pointed out that the department froze the bank account without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing, which goes against principles of natural justice.
In view of this, the High Court set aside the communication dated 21 March 2025 and ordered the bank to de-freeze the petitioner’s account within one week.
The court also said that the department is free to start proper legal proceedings if they want to decide liability of the petitioner under Section 93 of the GST Act.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
