M/S Shri Krishna Enterprises Krishan Deep Garg vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-11838-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 M/S SHRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISES ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Rajiv K. Virmani, Advocate and Mr. Akshaye Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Add., AG, Haryana. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)
At the time when the matter was initially heard by us on 10.07.2026, we indicated that it could be heard along with other writ petitions, wherein the issue raised pertained to the legality of a composite notice issued in respect of multiple years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that he would like to argue his matter notwithstanding the said ground, as there are other issues on which the petition can succeed. It is for this reason, and in view of the fact that the issue of bunching was not pressed, that we directed this matter to be heard separately.
We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material appended to the instant writ petition.
The order-in-original is primarily assailed on the ground that an opportunity of hearing has been denied to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the amount of penalty is more than what is permissible under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017. 5. So far as the argument with regard to the denial of an RAHUL JOSHI 2026.07.23 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
CWP-11838-2026 (O&M)
2 opportunity of hearing is concerned, we find from the observations made at pages 85 and 89 of the paper book that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, and he had already been heard through his counsel, Sh. Tarun. These findings contained in the order have not been assailed.
Once that be so, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of denial of an opportunity of hearing.
So far as the calculation error in the order with regard to the penalty is concerned, it is always open to the petitioner to apply for rectification, whereupon such calculation errors can be rectified.
Even otherwise, the order under challenge is appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and we do not find this to be a fit case for entertaining the writ petition by passing any order.
In the facts of the case, we provide that if an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection with regard to limitation.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR]
JUDGE JULY 21, 2026 Rahul Joshi
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether Reportable Yes/No RAHUL JOSHI 2026.07.23 09:32 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.