Anu Batta vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
` 213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-859-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.08.2026 ANU BATTA …PETITIONER(S) Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab.
*** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the writ petition raises various issues, he confines the challenge only to the order dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure P-8) primarily on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned.
Learned counsel for the revenue fairly admits that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. Section 75(4) of the Act, reads as under:- “Section 75(4) in The Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: RAHUL JOSHI 2026.08.24 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
CWP-859-2025 (O&M) [2] (4)An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.” 4. and others, CWP-33977-2025, decided on 24.03.2026, wherein, the Division Bench held as under:- “10. In the light of the above discussion, the present petition is accepted, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned adjudication/assessment order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P- 1). However, liberty is granted to the respondent-revenue to proceed against the petitioner but only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act.
In that view of the matter, the present petition also stands disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 14.08.2026 Rahul Joshi
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAHUL JOSHI 2026.08.24 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.