250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19604-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2026. M/S USHA INDUSTRIES INDIA .…...Petitioner(s) V/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present Mr. Sholab Arora, Advocate, Mr. Munish, Advocate, Ms. Diksha Goyal, Advocate Ms. Reenu, Advocate, and Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against order-in-original dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Proper Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana (respondent No.3), which is primarily assailed on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing. 2. It transpires that in respect of the same period, an assessment order dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) was passed against the petitioner. This order was assailed by the petitioner in CWP No.4291 of 2023, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2023, along with other connected cases. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinafter:- SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19604-2025 (O&M) “Keeping in view that certain documents were never part of the show cause notice dated 29.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) and have been made basis to pass the further order(s), the impugned orders (in all the petitions) are set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No.3-proper officer- cum-Deputy Commissioner State Tax, to pass fresh order(s) after giving details of the investigation reports and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s), in accordance with law by following principles of natural justice. All the petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 4041, 4291, 4305,4308 and 4610 of 2023 are disposed of accordingly.” 3. The order-in-original impugned records that thereafter various dates were fixed, and since the petitioner has failed to cooperate/respond as such, the order itself has been passed. The order is assailed on the ground that directions, contained in the order dated 17.04.2023, passed by this Court in CWP-4291-2023, have not been complied with in letter and spirit. 4. Perusal of the order dated 17.04.2023 would go to show that the previous order of 01.11.2022 was set aside on the ground that the materials relied upon against the petitioner for passing such order, were not supplied to it. The Writ Court, therefore, issued a direction that investigation reports etc., relied upon against the petitioner, are to be furnished to the petitioner, and after affording opportunity of hearing, a fresh order be passed. 5. It is undisputed that the documents in support of the respondent’s case were not furnished to the petitioner for the next 21 months. It is only on 27.01.2025 that an e-mail (Annexure P-9) was sent to the petitioner annexing investigation report etc. which were relied SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19604-2025 (O&M) upon against the petitioner for passing the order in original against the petitioner earlier. Since 28.01.2025 was already the date fixed for hearing, and the documents provided were running into more than 200 pages, the petitioner had requested for a short opportunity to examine such records and furnish proper reply. However, this request of the petitioner was not acceded to and the hearing was concluded on 28.01.2025 by the authority concerned, whereafter, the impugned order was passed. It is, therefore, urged that there is denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 6. The claim of the petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned State counsel. He submits that several dates were fixed earlier, but the petitioner chose not to appear, and therefore the petitioner alone is responsible for the proceedings having remained pending for an unduly long period. 7. From the materials placed on record, it is apparent that in the previous round of litigation, the impugned order-in-original was set aside as documents which have been relied upon against the petitioner, were not furnished to it. This Court, on 17.04.2023, has directed such materials to be furnished to the petitioner. Records reveal that though various dates were fixed after 17.04.2023, but the documents relied upon against the petitioner were furnished to it only on 27.01.2025 by way of an email sent to the petitioner, which comprised of more than 200 pages. SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19604-2025 (O&M) 8. In such circumstances, when the date of hearing was fixed on 28.01.2025, the petitioner was clearly justified in asking for a reasonable opportunity to examine such documents, and furnish its reply thereto. The authority concerned was not justified in refusing such request and concluding the proceedings on 28.01.2025 itself. Consequentially, order passed on 05.02.2025, therefore, is found to be violative of principles of natural justice, and is otherwise unstainable in law, as it is in the teeth of the observations made by this Court on 17.04.2023 in CWP-4291-2023. 9. The Writ Petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-11) stands quashed, accordingly. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit its reply within two weeks from today. Such reply of the petitioner would be examined by the appropriate adjudicating authority, who shall fix date of hearing in the matter and thereafter, proceed to pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. [ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE July 23, 2026 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document