Puneet Trading Co vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Puneet Trading Co., sought to quash a final order dated 27.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in Form GST DRC-07. This order confirmed a demand of ₹3,91,406, along with interest and penalty, for the period 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner argued that despite submitting a reply dated 28.07.2025 to the show cause notice dated 28.06.2025, the impugned order erroneously stated that no reply had been filed. The State counsel did not dispute this factual assertion.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 27.12.2025 suffered from a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed filed a reply dated 28.07.2025 to the show cause notice. The fact that the impugned order erroneously stated that no reply had been filed, and consequently failed to consider it, meant that the petitioner's right to be heard and have their submissions considered was infringed. The Court reasoned that a reply filed by the assessee to a show cause notice must be considered before passing an order. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without considering a filed reply violates natural justice. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders after considering the petitioner's reply dated 28.07.2025 and also affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the final order dated 27.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2, confirming a GST demand of ₹3,91,406 for the period 2018-19, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is unsustainable because it incorrectly recorded that no reply was filed to the show cause notice, despite the petitioner having submitted a reply on 28.07.2025. This failure to consider the petitioner's response constitutes a violation of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The learned State counsel did not dispute the factual assertion made by the petitioner regarding the filing of the reply. Therefore, no specific argument was presented by the revenue on this point.