GST bank account freeze without notice or liability determination was quashed for violating natural justice and statutory preconditions.

Attachment and freezing of a bank account for alleged GST dues of a deceased proprietor were held unsustainable where the petitioner held a separate GST registration and there was no prior notice, hearing, or determination of liability. The Court noted that liability under Section 93 CGST Act could arise only after notice and material showing continuation of the deceased's business or other legal responsibility, and that coercive recovery or provisional attachment required statutory preconditions and observance of natural justice. Because the account freeze was based on assumptions rather than adjudication, the action was quashed and the account ordered to be defreezed, leaving the department free to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the attachment and freezing of the petitioner's bank account for recovery of alleged GST dues of his deceased father, without prior notice, hearing, or determination of liability under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was lawful.

Analysis: The petitioner and the deceased proprietor held separate GST registrations and operated from different places of business, making them independent taxable persons. Liability under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, could arise only after determining, on notice and on material, whether the petitioner had continued the deceased's business or otherwise became liable for the deceased's dues. The freezing of a bank account, being an interference with property protected by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, could not rest on assumptions or mere similarity of trade name. Coercive recovery under Section 79 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and any provisional attachment power under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, required statutory preconditions, tangible material, and observance of natural justice. In the absence of any prior adjudicatory process, the impugned action was held to be jurisdictionally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The attachment and freezing of the petitioner's bank account were quashed, and the account was directed to be defreezed forthwith. The department was left free to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.

---