` 297 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sadbhav Engineering Limited State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Vaibhav K. Jajoo Mr. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against order which records that no reply has been filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a reply was filed to the show cause notice, which has not been adverted to. In the facts of the case, we find that ASMT document, the pet The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on 11.11.2022, contending that there was a clerical error inasmuch a pertaining to the State of Utta transaction also in respect of the State of Haryana. The reply filed to ASMT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-37042 Date of Decision: Sadbhav Engineering Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav K. Jajoo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) This petition is directed against order which records that no reply has been filed by the petitioner to the show cause It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a reply was filed to the show cause notice, which has not been adverted to. In the facts of the case, we find that ASMT-10 was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.2022. As per the said document, the petitioner was required to pay tax to the tune of Rs.3,50,40,518/ The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on 11.11.2022, contending that there was a clerical error inasmuch as a invoice pertaining to the State of Uttar Pradesh, was additionally shown to be a transaction also in respect of the State of Haryana. The reply filed to ASMT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 37042-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Advocate with dvocate for the petitioner. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) This petition is directed against order-in-Original dated 12.09.2024, which records that no reply has been filed by the petitioner to the show cause It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a reply was filed to the show cause notice, which has not been adverted to. In the facts of the case, we 10 was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.2022. As per the said itioner was required to pay tax to the tune of Rs.3,50,40,518/ The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on 11.11.2022, contending that invoice issued in respect of transaction r Pradesh, was additionally shown to be a transaction also in respect of the State of Haryana. The reply filed to ASMT Original dated 12.09.2024, which records that no reply has been filed by the petitioner to the show cause It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a reply was filed to the show cause notice, which has not been adverted to. In the facts of the case, we 10 was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.2022. As per the said itioner was required to pay tax to the tune of Rs.3,50,40,518/-. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on 11.11.2022, contending that issued in respect of transaction r Pradesh, was additionally shown to be a transaction also in respect of the State of Haryana. The reply filed to ASMT-10 RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.03 17:26 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-37042-2025 (O&M) [2] has not been accepted, whereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that the clerical mistake which had occurred was corrected in the annual return, and, therefore, merely because of a clerical error, the petitioner cannot be saddled with afresh liability for payment of tax. 3. This claim of the petitioner, however, was not accepted leading to issuance of a show cause notice. This notice was followed with issuance of DRC- 01 dated 09.02.2023. The petitioner submitted a reply which was referred to as a reply to DRC-01A, though the reply was in response to the show cause notice issued under DRC-01 but in the reply, it was recorded as being in response to DRC-01A. It was for this reason that the authorities have not considered the reply of the petitioner and consequently, the order impugned has been passed, which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of department’s claim is an inadvertent error which already stands rectified in the annual return filed by the petitioner and despite such fact having been highlighted before the authorities, there is no consideration of such reply of the petitioner on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, defends the order on the ground that the reply of the petitioner was to the notice issued under DRC-01A and since no reply was filed to DRC-01, therefore, while passing the final order in proceedings initiated under DRC-01, the reply submitted by the petitioner to the previous notice DRC-01A, has rightly not been accorded consideration. It is also the case of the respondents that the reply to ASMT-10 has already been examined. So far as the reply to notice issued under ASMT-10 is concerned, the respondents have rejected it only on the ground that documents RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.03 17:26 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-37042-2025 (O&M) [3] in support of the plea had not been annexed. This error was rectified and while submitting reply to the notice issued under DRC-01, the petitioner had annexed such documents. The mere fact that the reply of the petitioner was stated to be in response to notice issued under DRC-01A while the reply did refer to the email vide which the notice under DCR-01 was issued, it would not mean that the department would be justified in not considering the reply of the petitioner on merits. 6. The claim of the petitioner that the mismatch pointed out by the department was only a clerical error which has already been rectified, while submitting the annual return, therefore, was required to be examined on merits. The department would not be justified in stating that no reply has been submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice in such peculiar facts of the case. 7. In that view of the matter, we find substance in the petitioner’s contention that since the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been examined, therefore, there is no proper application of mind on the part of the concerned authorities to the reply of the petitioner, which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 12.09.2024, is set aside and the matter is remitted back with direction to the adjudicating authorities to accord fresh consideration of cause, after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner on 23.03.2023 along with which the petitioner has also furnished the details with regard to correction having been carried out in the annual return. The authorities would also afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before taking final decision in the matter. The petitioner also undertakes to furnish its correct email address to the department along with a copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.03 17:26 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-37042-2025 (O&M) [4] explanation furnished by the petitioner or on the ultimate tax liability, which is yet to be examined by the competent adjudicating authority. 8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 02.09.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.03 17:26 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.