Ramesh Chand vs. The State Of Hp
Held
The High Court, without examining the merits of the matter, disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted the pendency of the statutory appeal filed by the partnership firm. Based on the instructions placed on record and the submissions made by the respondents, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the office letter dated 09.09.2024 until the decision of the time-barred statutory appeal preferred by the partnership firm. The reasoning appears to be a pragmatic approach to avoid immediate coercive recovery from the petitioner while the appeal, albeit time-barred, is pending. The ratio decidendi is that in such circumstances, a former partner may be granted interim protection from coercive recovery pending the resolution of a challenge to the underlying demand by the current entity, even if the appeal is procedurally flawed.
Facts
The petitioner, Ramesh Chand, was a former partner of M/s Biologics INC, a partnership firm. The firm's assessment for the years 2015-16 to 2017-18 was finalized on 01.09.2023, resulting in an additional demand of ₹43,94,410/-. The State has recovered ₹10,77,860/- of this amount. The demand was declared arrears of land revenue on 18.09.2023. Recovery proceedings were initiated, including a letter to the District Collector, Karnal, Haryana, as the partners belonged to that area. The petitioner is aggrieved by a recovery notice dated 09.09.2024. He states that he has ceased to be a partner, a new partnership firm has been constituted, and this new firm has filed a statutory appeal against the demand, which is pending adjudication. The respondents admit the pendency of this appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery notice dated 09.09.2024 is efficacious against the petitioner, a former partner, given that a new partnership firm has been constituted and has filed a pending statutory appeal against the demand? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of partnership liability and the efficacy of recovery proceedings against former partners when a new entity has challenged the demand). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he is no longer a partner in the firm, a new partnership firm has been formed, and this new firm has filed a statutory appeal against the demand. He argues that coercive action should not be taken against him until this appeal is decided. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Advocate General, state that under Sections 25, 26 & 27 of the H.P. VAT Act, all partners are jointly and severally responsible for tax liabilities. They admit the pendency of the statutory appeal filed by the partnership firm, noting it is time-barred and scheduled for hearing on 03.08.2026.
Sections Cited
Section 75, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12074 of 2026 Decided on: 23.07.2026 Ramesh Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others
..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Singh Thakur, Advocate vice Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Avinash Chauhan, Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Nahan in person. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The grievance of the petitioner was noticed in the following order passed in this writ petition on 20.07.2026:- “Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner feels aggrieved against recovery notice dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-1). In nutshell, his case is that the dispute in question is between the State Excise & Taxation Department and M/s Biologics INC-a partnership firm, of which the petitioner was a partner at one stage. The petitioner h
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.