JUDGMENT :

Farhan Dubash, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Government Pleader waives service for the Respondents. By consent of parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. The present Petition under Articles 226 and 300A of the Constitution of India challenges a communication dated 21^st March 2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 79(1)(c) read with Section 93(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), whereby the Petitioner's bank account bearing no. 41485511814 maintained with the State Bank of India, CBD Belapur Branch, came to be attached for recovery of alleged outstanding GST dues of the Petitioner's deceased father.

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. The material facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

(a) The Petitioner's father, late Mr. Pudugraman Neelakantan Vishwanathan, carried on his proprietorship business under the trade name “M/s. Oriental Facility”, holding GST Registration No. 27AMGPP7304N1ZL, with its principal place of business at Sector8B, Flat No. C-232, Vikasani CHS, CBD Belapur, Thane - 400614.

(b) By an order dated 7^th March 2024, passed on show cause notice dated 29^th December 2022, the said GST registration stood suo motu cancelled with effect from 1^st January 2023.

(c) The Petitioner's father passed away on 11^th February 2024.

(d) Prior to the demise of his father, the Petitioner is stated to have commenced his independent proprietorship business engaged in labour supply and employment services by adopting the same trade name of “M/s. Oriental Facility ”, allegedly as a mark of continuity with his father’s legacy.

(e) On 22^nd February 2023, the Petitioner obtained a separate GST registration for his said proprietorship business, bearing GSTIN 27ADXPN900D1ZD, and commenced operations from a separate and distinct place of business, namely Office No. 807, Prabhat Center Annex, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614.

(f) It is not in dispute that both proprietorships are separately registered taxable entities under the GST regime.

(g) Five days after the demise of the Petitioner’s father, Respondent No. 2 /Deputy Commissioner of State Tax issued an order in Form DRC-07 on 16^th February 2024 raising a demand of approximately Rs.3,86,61,652/- crores against the proprietorship concern of the Petitioner's deceased father under Rule 142(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

(h) On becoming aware of these proceedings, the Petitioner filed an appeal challenging the attachment of his deceased father’s bank account/s on 6^th February 2024 and also deposited 10% of the disputed tax. The Petitioner thereafter addressed correspondence with the Department seeking release of the bank account/s belonging to his deceased father.

(i) Considering this, the Department released the attachment of the bank account/s of the Petitioner’s deceased father.

(j) Nearly one year thereafter, Respondent No. 2 invoked Sections 79 and 93 of the CGST Act and issued Form GST DRC-13 dated 21^st March 2025 to Respondent No. 3 / State Bank of India viz. the Petitioner's banker, directing recovery of dues aggregating Rs. 4,15,54,508/- allegedly payable by the Petitioner’s deceased father towards tax, cess, interest and penalty.

(k) Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner's bank account with Respondent No. 3 came to be frozen without issuance of any prior show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to him.

(l) The Petitioner immediately addressed a representation dated 24^th March 2025 asserting that his proprietorship was distinct from that of his deceased father despite similarity of trade name and requested de- freezing of his personal bank account.

(m) No action was taken by Respondent No. 2, which resulted in the Petitioner filing of the present Writ Petition.

PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's proprietorship business is an independent taxable entity having a distinct GST registration and separate place of business an