Balwinder Sood And Sons vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Balwinder Sood and Sons, filed writ petitions challenging an order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the respondents (State of Punjab and others). The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated in the determination of their tax liability. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2025, with a deadline to submit a reply by 01.08.2025. However, the respondents scheduled a personal hearing for 15.07.2025, which was prior to the reply submission date. The petitioner argued that this premature hearing denied them an effective opportunity to respond. The facts asserted by the petitioner were not disputed by the respondents.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 was unsustainable as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that an opportunity of hearing is not a mere formality; for it to be meaningful, the assessee must have a prior opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice. Affording an oral hearing without first considering the assessee's written response would violate natural justice. The Court found the respondents' argument unconvincing. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit its reply within two weeks, after which the respondents were to fix a fresh hearing date and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether fixing a date for personal hearing prior to the deadline for submitting a reply to a show cause notice violates the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to an effective opportunity of hearing, under the GST regime? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that by fixing the personal hearing date (15.07.2025) before the stipulated reply submission date (01.08.2025), they were denied an effective opportunity to present their case. They relied on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Swiftline Transport Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. [2025] taxman.com 381. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the law does not mandate that a hearing date can only be fixed after the submission of a reply.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
`
153
I M/s Balwinde State of Punja
154 M/s Balwinde State of Punja
CORAM: H
H
Present: M
M
ASHWANI K
I convenience,
T under the GST
T order is that determination IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIG
CWP-2 CWP-2 HON’BLE THE ACTING CHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROH Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate f Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG,
*** KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Or Identical issue is involved in bot facts are being extracted from C This petition assails an order d T, has been raised from the petiti The short ground on which the p principles of natural justice ha n of tax liability. NJAB AND HARYANA GARH 20120-2026 (O&M) f Decision: 07.07.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents 20132-2026 (O&M) f Decision: 07.07.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents IEF JUSTICE HIT KAPOOR for the petitioner. Punjab. ral) th the writ petitions. For the sak CWP-20120-2026. dated 07.08.2025, whereby dem ioner. petitioner has assailed the impug ave been violated in the proces ke of mand gned ss of RAJESH KUMAR
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.