CWP-16675- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s Wuze Corporation Union of India and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Peyush Pruthi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, for the DEEPAK SIBAL A financial years ITC by the petitioner 30.06.2025 (Annexure P 07.08.2025). passed to the petitioner’s prejudice without considering any of th raised by the petitioner through its reply (Annexure P 2. Learned c petitioner’s reply was inadvertently ignored at the time of passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 (Ann 3. In the light of the above, the impugned adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P mind and therefore -2026 (O&M) Sr. No.118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16675 Date of Decision : M/s Wuze Corporation Versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Peyush Pruthi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) A show cause notice dated 01.08.2024 financial years was served upon the petitioner on account of ITC by the petitioner, to which the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-15) (sent to the respondents through email on However, adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 passed to the petitioner’s prejudice without considering any of th raised by the petitioner through its reply (Annexure P Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that the petitioner’s reply was inadvertently ignored at the time of passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 (Ann In the light of the above, the impugned adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P-16) has been passed without application of and therefore, is set aside qua the petitioner. However, liberty IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 16675-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.05.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI .08.2024, pertaining to several served upon the petitioner on account of availing of fake to which the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 15) (sent to the respondents through email on However, adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 has been passed to the petitioner’s prejudice without considering any of the pleas raised by the petitioner through its reply (Annexure P-15). unsel for the respondents fairly admits that the petitioner’s reply was inadvertently ignored at the time of passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P-16). In the light of the above, the impugned adjudication order has been passed without application of the petitioner. However, liberty is VANDANA 2026.05.27 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16675- granted to the respondents accordance with law. 4. The petition is a May 26, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No proceed afresh against the petitioner, in llowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.27 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document