Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a retired partner remained liable for the firm's GST dues where no intimation of retirement was given to the Commissioner within one month, and whether the writ court should interfere with the recovery action.
Analysis: Section 90 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides that the firm and its partners are jointly and severally liable for tax dues, and that a retiring partner or the firm must intimate the date of retirement to the Commissioner by notice in writing. If such intimation is not given within one month, the retiring partner's liability continues until the date on which the intimation is received by the Commissioner. The petitioner admitted retirement from the firm but could not show that timely intimation was given to the competent authority. The record also showed that the claimed intimation was made much later, after recovery proceedings had already been initiated. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not avoid liability on the plea that the firm alone was required to intimate the authorities.
Conclusion: The petitioner remained liable under Section 90 until valid intimation of retirement was received, and no ground for interference was made out.
Ratio Decidendi: A retiring partner continues to remain liable for the firm's tax dues until the Commissioner receives written intimation of retirement within the prescribed period.