AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igners Auto Zone have been called upon to appear and deposit a sum of Rs. 37,84,228/- under Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short - 'PGST Act') and Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Petitioner also seeks a restraint upon respondents No. 1 and 2 from attaching the property which belongs to him. 2. Brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that a partnership Firm was constituted by the present petitioner and one Puneet Singla son of Bhim Singh, Deepak Nagpal son of Jogender Nagpal and Gurvinder Singh son of Gurdev Singh. Land belonging to petitioner and other partner Gurvinder Singh son of Gurdev Singh was taken on rent by the Firm vide agreement dated 16.02.2017. It is stated that there were various changes in the compos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd it is then it came to light that special remark has been added to jamabandi/land record to the effect that petitioner's share (103/3890) in the land measuring 19 bighas 09 biswas had been attached in favour of GST department vide rapat No. 194 dated 02.01.2025. Representation dated 11.03.2025 was submitted by petitioner before State Tax Officer, Ward 4, Dhuri explaining his case and requesting for removal of attachment. Reply to notice/order dated 20.02.2025 was also submitted by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner had retired from partnership Firm in question on 20.04.2021 and had nothing to do with the Firm in question, therefore, he cannot be saddled with any responsibility at this st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discharge this tax liability. Proceedings under Section 73 of the PGST Act, 2017 were initiated against Firm. Intimation in form DRC 01A dated 20.07.2023 was duly served as per the modes prescribed under Section 169 (c) and (d) of PGST Act, 2017. Neither the Firm nor any of the partners responded to the said intimation leading to show cause notice dated 15.03.2024 (form GST DRC-01) being issued under Section 173(1) of PGST Act, 2017, which was duly served. 6. Subsequent thereto, order dated 06.05.2024 in form DRC-07 was passed. After lapse of statutory period as prescribed under Section 78 of PGST Act, 2017, recovery proceedings under Section 79 of PGST Act, 2017 Act were initiated against the Firm vide DRC-09 dated 20.11.2024. No reply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 73 of PGST and CGST Act, 2017 was rejected on 28.04.2025. 9. We heard learned counsel for parties at length and have carefully perused the file. 10. At the outset, it is to be noticed that it is the case of petitioner himself that although he 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, is devoid of any merit, hence rejected. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 90 of CGST 2017, which reads....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nothing on record to indicate that petitioner at any point of time had taken any steps to ensure intimation to authorities about his retirement from the Firm in question. Furthermore, reference was made to communication dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P13) by Raswinder Singh to State Tax Officer, Ward 4 to submit that intimation regarding retirement of petitioner on 20.04.2021 and induction of new partner namely Deepak Kumar is mentioned therein. Communication dated 28.02.2025 reads as under:- "To State Tax Officer, Ward -4, Dhuri - Sangrur. Sub.: - Regarding Update of partner's detail in our registration Respected Sir, With due regard's I Rasvinder Singh S/o Harbans Singh Partner of....