M/S Bagga Vet Pharma vs. State Of Punjab And Another

CWP NO.7816 O

IN THE

M/s Bagga Ve

V State of Punja

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

M

fo

M

M

Fo

LAPITA BAN

Pr Constitution o quashing the i passed by the J OF 2026

E HIGH C OURT OF PUNJAB

CHANDIGARH

CWP NO et Pharma

Versus ab and another

e when the judgment is reserved e when the judgment is pronounc e when the judgment is uploaded r only operative part of the j nced or whether the full ju nced ay, if any of the pronouncem nt, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPI Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advo Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, P Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate, or the respondents. NERJI, J. rayer in the present petition un f India is for issuance of a writ impugned order dated Decembe Joint Commissioner, Patiala, Pun B AND HARYANA AT O.7816 OF 2026 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents 06.04.2026 ced 17.04.2026 d 17.04.2026 judgment is udgment is Full ment of full Not applicable EPAK SIBAL ITA BANERJI cate with Punjab nder Articles 226/227 of the in the nature of certiorari for er 30, 2025 (Annexure P-11) njab. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP NO.7816 O

T proprietor one Veterinary and ii)

D DRC-01A dat alleging that th in respect of c goods and exe proposed to be iii)

A November 18 petitioner’s re Section 73 or (hereinafter re Act, 2017 (her iv)

Fo dated August Deputy Comm OF 2026

he grievance of the petitioner in e reply submitted by the petition order has been passed but the s he Show Cause Notice. he brief facts of the case are as f he petitioner is a proprietorsh e Inderpal Singh. The petitioner d Poultry Feed Supplements and During the financial year 2020-2 ted November 11, 2024 (Annex he petitioner had failed to revers common input availed by the pe mpted goods. Accordingly, a dem e imposed on the petitioner. Against the same, the petition 8, 2024 (Annexure P-2). Afte eply, no proceedings were initia r 74 of the Central Goods a ferred to as “the CGST Act”)/Pu reinafter referred to as “the PGST or the financial year 2021-22, 19, 2025 (Annexure P-3) was is missioner of State Tax, Patiala. T n short is that not only without ner to the Show Cause Notice, same was also passed beyond follows: hip concern run by its sole r is engaged in the trading of Additives. 21, the petitioner was issued xure P-1) by the department se the Input Tax Credit (ITC) etitioner for supply of taxable mand of Rs.2,30,52,557/- was ner submitted a reply dated er being satisfied with the ated by the authorities under and Services Tax Act, 2017 unjab Goods and Services Tax T Act”). a scrutiny notice ASMT-10 ssued by the respondent No.2- The same issue regarding short SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP NO.7816 O

reversal of ITC respondent-dep v)

T August 26, 20 availed ITC exclusively to supporting doc vi)

T September 29 same issues by “sub-judice”. W reply was not s vii) T 2025 (Annexu authorities tha and after con accounts, the d viii) In circulars issue (CBIC) dated P-9) to augme supplies. Ther December 25, OF 2026

C in respect of supply of exemp partment. he petitioner replied to the s 025 (Annexure P-4) and subm only to the tune of Rs.6,8 o taxable supplies. The petiti cuments including ledgers to the he respondent No.2 issued a , 2025 (Annexure P-6) in the y recording that reply was not sa With regard to issue of credit n satisfactory. he petitioner submitted a detail ure P-7) wherein the petitioner at for the financial year 2020-21 nsidering the petitioner’s reply department dropped the proceedi n the detailed reply, the petition ed by the Central Board of I June 26, 2024 and September 1 ent its argument that ITC was reafter, the petitioner again file 2025 submitting complete reco pted goods was raised by the said Show Cause Notice on mitted that the petitioner had 80,00,226/- which pertained ioner also handed over the department.

Show Cause Notice dated form of DRC-01 raising the atisfactory and the matter was notes, it was recorded that the ed reply dated November 18, brought to the notice of the , the same issues were raised y and perusing its books of ings against the petitioner. ner had placed reliance on the Indirect Taxes and Customs 12, 2025 (Annexures P-8 and availed only for the taxable ed an additional reply dated onciliation of reversal of ITC SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP NO.7816 O

by its recipien not eligible for ix)

H passed by resp on the petition the impugned been clearly re has transpired applicability o remained unsa

nts along with proof thereof, seg r reversal. However, the impugned order da pondent No.2 confirming the dem ner in the Show Cause Notice D order under Section 73 of the C ecorded that on perusal of reply d that the matter was still “su of ITC reversal. Therefore, the atisfactory. Mr. Goyal, Senior advocate a mits that there was a complete o.2 in passing the impugned ord ce” qua the merits of the petitio ment through Show Cause Notic r financial year 2020-21 were he reply filed by the petitione He vehemently contends that ne passed without any applic made by the petitioner firm nor th ered by respondent No.2 who h sub-judice” and the reply file , in the impugned order. Hence, t gregating recipients who were ated December 30, 2025 was mand proposed to be imposed DRC-01. In the attachment of CGST/PGST Act, 2017 it has submitted by the tax payer, it ub-judice” on merits qua the reply filed by the petitioner appearing on behalf of the e non-application of mind by der as there was no issue that oner’s case. The issues raised ce DRC-01A dated November e not proceeded with after er and perusing its books of the impugned order is a cation of mind. Neither the he reconciliation furnished by had simply repeated that the ed by the petitioner remain the same should be set-aside. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP NO.7816 O

ssue Notice of motion to the resp Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additiona on behalf of the respondents a was “sub-judice” on merits qua case. his Court has heard learned aterial on record. rom the perusal of the impugne pires that no cogent reason at a replies filed by the petitioner. On ention in the impugned order wh at the disparity in the profit r lies remained unexplained and erits on applicability of ITC re which of the outward supplies after consideration of CBIC circu , 2025. There is not even a whi o.2 came to the finding that the ally when it was not disputed th ber 18, 2024 to DRC-01A dat ose not to proceed against the pe d for financial year 2020-21. n the light of the undisputed fa aforesaid discussion, this Cou pondents. al Advocate General, Punjab and upon instructions submits applicability of ITC reversal, counsel for the parties and ed order dated December 30, all has been provided for not nly reply dated November 18, here the adjudicating authority ratio of tax free and taxable d the matter was still “sub- eversal. No reason at all was were tax free and which ones ulars dated June 26, 2024 and isper as to the basis on which e matter was “sub-judice” on hat after considering the reply ted September 11, 2024 the etitioner firm in respect of the acts, fair submissions by Mr. urt is of the view that the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP NO.7816 O

impugned ord application of order shall no Show Cause N be done only a fresh opportu accordance wi

(DEEPAK SIB

JUDGE

APRIL 17, 20 Shalini

Whether speak Whether repor

OF 2026

der dated December 30, 2025 mind and the same is set-aside a ot preclude the authorities from Notice DRC-01 dated September after considering all the replies fi unity to a representative of th law. With the aforesaid directions, th 026 is disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, BAL)

(L E

026 king/reasoned:

Y rtable:

Y suffers from complete non- and/or quashed. However, this m proceeding in terms of the r 29, 2025 but the same shall filed by the petitioner, giving a the petitioner firm and in he writ petition, being CWP , shall also stand disposed of LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document