Order Date - 18 July 2025 

Parties: Harvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and others

Facts -

• The Petitioner, Harvinder Singh, a former partner of M/s Foreigners Auto Zone, challenged GST recovery and land attachment order issued on 20.02.2025, claiming he had retired from the firm on 20.04.2021 before the liability arose.

Issue -

• Whether the petitioner, having retired from the firm, can be held liable for tax dues when no intimation of his retirement was given to the GST authorities within the statutory time?

Order -

• The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court observed that petitioner retired from partnership Firm in question on 20.04.2021, no intimation in respect to the same was given to the competent authority. Argument raised on behalf of petitioner that it was not possible for him to have intimated the competent authority on his own and it was only for the Firm to have taken necessary steps, therefore, he cannot be fastened with any liability, was found devoid of any merit, hence rejected.
• It was clarified that intimation of retirement of partner has to be given to the Commissioner by notice in writing and that in case, no such intimation is given within one month from the date of retirement, liability of such partner under first proviso shall continue until the date on which such intimation is received by the Commissioner.
• In the given factual matrix, the Court concluded that it could not be held that the petitioner was not liable under the Act, especially in view of categoric provision of Section 90 of CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the writ petition stood dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail remedies available under law, including appeal under Section 107 of the PGST Act.