Case Details:Harvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 812 (Punjab & Haryana)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mrs. Lisa Gill and Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.
- Amit Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG for the Respondent.
Fact of the Case
The petitioner, in a matter placed before the High Court, was issued a notice following assessment of the firm under section 73 of the CGST Act and the Punjab GST Act in relation to discrepancies in payment of GST. The petitioner submitted that he had retired from the partnership firm and had no further involvement with its affairs, and therefore could not be held liable for any tax dues or compliance failures. It was contended that any action initiated against him post-retirement was without justification. The petitioner sought relief from proceedings on the ground that he bore no continuing obligation as a partner. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
HC Held
The High Court held that although the petitioner claimed to have retired from the firm, no written intimation of such retirement had been furnished to the competent authority. It was noted that under section 90 of the CGST Act and the Punjab GST Act, intimation of retirement of a partner must be given to the Commissioner in writing, failing which the liability of such partner continues under law. In the absence of any such intimation, the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim that he was not liable. The petitioner was unable to demonstrate any legal ground that would justify interference by the Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
The post Retired partner liable if retirement not notified to authority | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
