Facts of the Case

Harvinder Singh sought quashing of a summoning order dated 20.02.2025 issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assistant Collector, calling upon him and other partners of M/s Foreigners Auto Zone to deposit Rs 37,84,228/- assessed under Section 73 of the PGST/CGST Act for 2023-24, and a restraint against attachment of his property. He claimed to have retired from the partnership on 20.04.2021, well before the default period (April 2022), and that a red entry had been created on his land based on the firm's dues without his knowledge, discovered only in February 2025. He contended he had no access to the GST portal after retirement and could not personally give the retirement intimation, which he said was the firm's obligation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a partner who has retired from a firm remains liable for the firm's GST dues where no written intimation of the retirement was given to the Commissioner as required by Section 90.
  2. Whether the petitioner's inability to access the GST portal after retirement excuses the statutory obligation to intimate retirement.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • He had retired from the partnership on 20.04.2021 and had no connection with the firm's affairs, including the alleged default period of April 2022.
  • It was the firm's responsibility, not his individually, to intimate his retirement to the authorities; he had given up portal access, which remained with the continuing partners.
  • Recovery action should be directed against the existing partners alone, who were responsible for the default.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Under Section 90 of the CGST Act, a retiring partner's liability continues until a written intimation of the date of retirement is given to the Commissioner; absent such intimation, liability does not cease.
  • An alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 was available, and the writ was not maintainable on that ground.
  • As per GST records, the petitioner and his real brother (an active partner) remained shown as active partners since no amendment application reflecting the petitioner's exit had ever been filed.

Court Order / Findings

  • Section 90 of the CGST Act mandates written intimation of a partner's retirement to the Commissioner; absent it, the retiring partner's liability continues until such intimation is actually received.
  • The petitioner's argument that intimation was solely the firm's responsibility was rejected as devoid of merit — he took no steps himself, at any point, to ensure intimation of his retirement.
  • It was also material that the other active partner was the petitioner's real brother, and correspondence dated 28.02.2025 seeking to update partner details was sent only after the petitioner discovered the attachment on his land, not at the time of the actual retirement in 2021.
  • Finding no ground warranting interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as may be available in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • A partner's exit from a GST-registered firm does not, by itself, end statutory liability — liability continues until the Commissioner actually receives written intimation of retirement, regardless of internal arrangements about who was supposed to send it.
  • A retiring partner who fails to personally ensure timely intimation cannot later disown liability by blaming the continuing partners for the omission.

Sections Involved

  • Section 90, CGST Act, 2017 — joint and several liability of partners, and the retiring partner's continuing liability absent written intimation.
  • Section 73, PGST/CGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not involving fraud/suppression.
  • Section 79, PGST Act, 2017 — recovery of tax.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Department — the writ petition is dismissed on merits, holding the petitioner's partner-liability subsists for want of intimation of retirement, with liberty to pursue other statutory remedies.

Case Details

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; CWP-9172-2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma; Order dated 18.07.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.