Judgment
CWP-30325-2026 (O&M) 1
132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30325-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.09.2026 M/S NEXAS ELECTROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR ***** Present:
Mr. Gurjant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. (Oral) 1.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed under section 73 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, alleging it to be in violation of section 75(7) of the Act. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondents to restore/re-credit the sum of Rs.51,86,605/- coercively recovered from the petitioner along with applicable interest.
2.
The undisputed facts, as emerge on record, are that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in Form GST DRC-01 on 30.09.2025. This ultimately led to passing of the order-in-original dated 30.12.2025. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was earlier challenged by filing CWP- 22305-2026 on the ground that the order itself was since uploaded on GST portal, as such the order cannot be treated to have been validly served upon the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others.
3.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier came to be disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra), MOHIT GOYAL 2026.09.18 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-30325-2026 (O&M) 2
with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of four weeks. While filing the earlier writ petition, wherein also the same order was under challenge, the petitioner had not pressed any other ground, and therefore, the limited protection granted to the petitioner was to give him an opportunity to file appeal, as in terms of the statute, the remedy of appeal otherwise had ceased to exist, since the limitation had expired. The petitioner has not filed any appeal, despite such opportunity having been granted to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner tried to file the appeal on the portal, but due to technical glitch, the appeal was not entertained, whereafter the petitioner tried to file the appeal physically, but the same has been returned by the office concerned.
4.
Learned State counsel has taken instructions, according to which the portal was functional, and the appeal filed physically was also addressed to an authority, other than the appellate authority.
5.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has not been able to file appeal, which cannot be stated to be on account of any laches on the part of the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to provide a further opportunity of two weeks for the petitioner to file the appeal on the portal. We also provide that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioner coercively, the same shall be adjusted towards 10% per-deposit contemplated in section 107(6)(b) of the Act.
6.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) CHIEF JUSTICE
(ROHIT KAPOOR) 17.09.2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2026.09.18 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document