Persistent Joint & Several Liability of Retired Partners under GST –
A Detailed Commentary on Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab
(2025 PHHC 88498-DB)

1. Introduction

In Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed whether a partner, who had allegedly retired from a partnership firm, could still be subjected to recovery proceedings for Goods and Services Tax (GST) liabilities when no retirement intimation was furnished to the tax authorities. The petitioner sought (i) quashing of the summoning and recovery order dated 20-02-2025 and (ii) a restraint against attachment of his land. The Court dismissed the writ petition, firmly holding that a partner’s liability under Section 90 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) continues until the retirement is duly intimated to the Commissioner within one month.

The matter, though seemingly fact-centric, crystallises two doctrinal issues:

• Scope of joint and several liability under Section 90 CGST Act for retired partners.
• Maintainability of a writ petition in fiscal matters where statutory appellate remedies exist.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court, per Justice Lisa Gill (concurred by Justice Sudeepti Sharma), held:

• Section 90 unequivocally makes both the firm and each partner jointly and severally liable for tax, interest and penalty.
• Retirement does not terminate liability unless notice of retirement is served on the Commissioner within one month; failure to do so extends the liability until such notice is actually received.
• The petitioner never notified his retirement (20-04-2021) to the Commissioner, and therefore remains liable for the firm’s dues of ₹37.84 lakh assessed for FY 2023-24.
• The red-entry attachment of the petitioner’s immovable property under the Punjab Land Revenue Act was lawful.
• The writ petition was not maintainable because Section 107 PGST Act provides an efficacious appellate remedy against the assessment and recovery orders.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents & Statutory Provisions Considered

Although the judgment principally hinges on statutory interpretation rather than case precedents, three legal sources frame the decision:

1. Section 90, CGST Act, 2017 – imposes joint and several liability on partners; contains the proviso about retirement intimation.
2. Sections 73, 78 & 79, PGST/CGST Acts – procedure for determination, time-bar before recovery, and modes of recovery (including property attachment).
3. Section 107, PGST Act, 2017 – statutory right of appeal, treated as an alternative remedy barring writ interference at the initial stage.

The Bench implicitly relied on a consistent line of Supreme Court authority that discourages High Courts from entertaining writ petitions where the statute provides a complete adjudicatory mechanism. Prominent among such cases are:

• Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 – lays down the self-imposed restrictions on Article 226 jurisdiction where an alternative remedy exists.
• Assistant Collector of Customs v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260 – emphasises deference to statutory appellate forums in fiscal matters.
• Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771 – reiterates the exceptions to the “alternative remedy” rule.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Plain-text Interpretation of Section 90
   The Court adopted a literal reading: the phrase “shall, jointly and severally, be liable” admits no discretion. The first proviso creates a statutory mechanism for discharge: notification to the Commissioner within one month. Because no such notice was given, the petitioner squarely remained within the charging ambit.
2. Absence of Evidence of Notification
   The only intimation was a letter dated 28-02-2025, almost four years post-retirement and long after assessment and recovery proceedings had commenced. This letter could not retro-actively extinguish the liability; hence the attachment was valid.
3. Relationship between Partners
   The Court found it relevant that the continuing partner was the petitioner’s real brother, suggesting internal knowledge and control of the firm’s GST portal. This fact weakened the petitioner’s claim of helplessness.
4. Alternative Remedy Doctrine
   Even if a merit argument existed, the proper route was an appeal under Section 107. The Court, therefore, refused to invoke discretionary writ jurisdiction (Article 226) save where the order is patently without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice, neither of which were established.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The ruling cements an onerous but clear compliance burden on retiring partners:

• A mandatory requirement to notify the Commissioner within 30 days, failing which they remain indefinitely liable for pre- and post-retirement GST dues.
• Due-diligence checklists for partnership dissolution/retirement in Punjab & Haryana must now prominently include timely electronic amendment of GST registration (FORM REG-14) and documentary confirmation of “retirement acknowledgment” by the tax authorities.
• For professionals, the judgment provides persuasive authority that partners cannot escape liability merely by internal deeds; the statutory notice is indispensable.
• Recovery machinery under Sections 78-79 receives judicial endorsement for attaching immovable property even where the partner claims disassociation.
• The decision aligns State-level jurisprudence with the national tax scheme, promoting uniformity and reducing forum-shopping.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Joint & Several Liability – Each partner is answerable for the entire tax due, not just their share. The Department may recover 100 % of the dues from one partner, leaving inter-se settlement to civil proceedings.
• Section 90 Proviso (Retirement Intimation) – A statutory “safe-harbour”. Retirement is effective vis-à-vis the Department only after the Commissioner actually receives written notice within one month, usually through the online GST portal.
• Red-Entry Attachment – A revenue record notation prohibiting transfer or charge on land until tax arrears are cleared; governed by the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
• DRC-07 / DRC-09 Forms – Electronic formats under the GST Rules: DRC-07 finalises demand; DRC-09 initiates recovery.
• Alternative Remedy Rule – High Courts generally decline writ jurisdiction when a viable statutory appeal exists, except for (a) breach of fundamental principles of natural justice, (b) absence of jurisdiction, or (c) violation of constitutional rights. None applied here.

5. Conclusion

Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab emphatically clarifies that retirement from a partnership does not by itself absolve a partner from GST liabilities; only a timely statutory notice can do so. The case reinforces the doctrinal rigour of Section 90 CGST Act and serves as a wake-up call for partners and advisors to adhere strictly to compliance timelines. Equally, it endorses the principle that resort to writ jurisdiction is impermissible where a full-fledged appellate framework is in place. Going forward, the judgment is set to be a pivotal reference in disputes concerning partner liability and recovery under the GST regime.