` 153 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Balwinder Sood State of Punjab 154 M/s Balwinder Sood State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. 1. Identical issue is involved in both the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from 2. This petition assails an order dated 07.08.2025, whereby demand under the GST, has been raised from the petitioner. 3. The short ground on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned order is that principles of natural justice have been violated in the process of determination of tax liability. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20120 Date of Decision: 0 Balwinder Sood and sons Vs. State of Punjab and others CWP-20132 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 Balwinder Sood and sons Vs. State of Punjab and others HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab. *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) Identical issue is involved in both the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP This petition assails an order dated 07.08.2025, whereby demand under the GST, has been raised from the petitioner. The short ground on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned order is that principles of natural justice have been violated in the process of determination of tax liability. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 20120-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents 20132-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR , Advocate for the petitioner. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab. (Oral) Identical issue is involved in both the writ petitions. For the sake of CWP-20120-2026. This petition assails an order dated 07.08.2025, whereby demand under the GST, has been raised from the petitioner. The short ground on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned order is that principles of natural justice have been violated in the process of Identical issue is involved in both the writ petitions. For the sake of This petition assails an order dated 07.08.2025, whereby demand The short ground on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned order is that principles of natural justice have been violated in the process of RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.09 15:09 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20120-2026 (O&M) and connected case [2] 4. Undisputed facts as would emerge from the record are that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2025. This notice contained a categorical recital that the petitioner can submit reply and explain the discrepancies on or before 01.08.2025. However, before the expiry of the said period, the respondents fixed a date for personal hearing as 15.07.2025. It is thereafter that the order impugned was passed by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the date for filing reply was already fixed as 01.08.2025, any date for personal hearing ought to have been fixed thereafter and fixing of any date prior to it, denies effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Swiftline Transport Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. [2025] taxman.com 381 (Allahabad). 6. Facts as have been asserted on behalf of the petitioner are borne out from a perusal of the record itself and are not disputed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the law does not mandate that the date of hearing can be fixed only after submission of reply. 8. We are not impressed by the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents inasmuch as the opportunity of hearing to an assessee is not an empty formality. For such opportunity to be meaningful, it would have to be shown that the petitioner had prior opportunity to explain its stand by submitting a reply to the show cause notice and only thereafter, an oral hearing can be of any relevance. Affording an opportunity of oral hearing without first taking the reply explaining the stand of the assessee in response to the show cause notice would clearly be violative of principles of natural justice. 9. In view of the observations made above, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the sole RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.09 15:09 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20120-2026 (O&M) and connected case [3] ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and impugned order dated 07.08.2025, is quashed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit its reply to the show cause notice within two weeks from today. The respondents will fix a date for hearing thereafter and shall be at liberty to proceed further by passing an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law. 10. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 07.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.09 15:09 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.