Rydberg Infratechnics Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Appeals Cum Appellate Authority
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
CWP-21541-2026 (O&M) 1
128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21541-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 RYDBERG INFRATECHNICS PRIVATE LIMITED ....Petitioner Versus JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR ***** Present: Mr. Parth Kumar, Advocate (through VC) for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)
The order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) is primarily questioned 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 impugned order, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Section 75(4) of the CGST/SGST 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 Central/Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: MOHIT GOYAL 2026.07.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-21541-2026 (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. 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).
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(ROHIT KAPOOR) 17.07.2026
JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2026.07.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
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.