IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Ankur Kampani Union of India and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, for the respondents. DEEPAK SIBAL It is not disputed that through the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P petitioner under Section Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Act, 2017 and Sec impugned order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the pet 2. In the light of afore admitted position, the impugned order is not only violative of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Ce Therefore, we petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. April 20, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Sr. No.139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9100 of 2026 Date of Decision : Ankur Kampani Versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Senior standing counsel for the respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is not disputed that through the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) a penalty of Rs.4, 03, 26 petitioner under Sections 122 (1)(A), 122(1)(x) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 b impugned order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the pet In the light of afore admitted position, the impugned order is not of the principles of natural justice but is also in conflict with provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. we have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order . However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA JUDGE , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 9100 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Senior standing counsel It is not disputed that through the impugned order dated 2) a penalty of Rs.4, 03, 26,803/- was imposed on the and 122(1) (xvi) of the Central the State Goods and Services Tax tion 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 but prior to the passing of the impugned order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner. In the light of afore admitted position, the impugned order is not principles of natural justice but is also in conflict with the oods and Services Tax Act, 2017. have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order qua the . However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.04.23 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document