CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 IN THE HIGH C M/s Bagga Vet Pharma Versus State of Punjab and another 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate, For the respondents. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Prayer in the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated December 30, 202 passed by the Joint CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 IN THE HIGH C OURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. M/s Bagga Vet Pharma Versus State of Punjab and another The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement of judgment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate, For the respondents. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Prayer in the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for impugned order dated December 30, 202 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Patiala, Punjab. Page 1 of 6 OURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents 06.04.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.04.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded 17.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab Prayer in the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for impugned order dated December 30, 2025 (Annexure P-11) , Patiala, Punjab. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 2. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, the impugned order has been passed the scope of the Show Cause Notice. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i) The petitioner is proprietor one Inderpal Singh. The pe Veterinary and Poultry Feed Supplements and Additives. ii) During DRC-01A dated November 11, 2024 alleging that the petitioner h in respect of common input avail goods and exempt proposed to be imposed on the petitioner. iii) Against the November 18, 2024 petitioner’s reply, no proceedings were initiated Section 73 or 74 of the (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”)/ Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the PGST Act”). iv) For the financial year 2021 dated August 1 Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patiala CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 The grievance of the petitioner in short is that considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, the impugned order has been passed but the same was also the scope of the Show Cause Notice. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a proprietorship concern run by its sole proprietor one Inderpal Singh. The petitioner is engaged in Veterinary and Poultry Feed Supplements and Additives. During the financial year 2020-21, the petitioner was issued 01A dated November 11, 2024 (Annexure P the petitioner had failed to reverse the in respect of common input availed by the petitioner for supply of exempted goods. Accordingly, a demand of Rs.2,30,52,557/ proposed to be imposed on the petitioner. Against the same, the petitioner submitted a reply dated November 18, 2024 (Annexure P-2). After being satisfied with the petitioner’s reply, no proceedings were initiated Section 73 or 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 nafter referred to as “the CGST Act”)/Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the PGST Act”). For the financial year 2021-22, a scrutiny notice dated August 19, 2025 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the respondent Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patiala. The same issue regarding short The grievance of the petitioner in short is that not only without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, but the same was also passed beyond The brief facts of the case are as follows: proprietorship concern run by its sole titioner is engaged in the trading of Veterinary and Poultry Feed Supplements and Additives. 21, the petitioner was issued (Annexure P-1) by the department ad failed to reverse the Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the petitioner for supply of taxable goods. Accordingly, a demand of Rs.2,30,52,557/- was same, the petitioner submitted a reply dated . After being satisfied with the petitioner’s reply, no proceedings were initiated by the authorities under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the PGST Act”). 22, a scrutiny notice ASMT-10 3) was issued by the respondent No.2- . The same issue regarding short SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 reversal of ITC respondent-department. v) The petitioner replied to the said Show Cause Notice on August 26, 2025 availed ITC only to the tune of Rs.6,80,00,226/ exclusively to supporting documents including ledgers vi) Th September 29, 2025 same issues by recording that reply was not satisfactory and the matter was “sub-judice”. With regard to iss reply was not satisfactory. vii) The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated November 18, 2025 (Annexure P authorities that for the financial year 2020 and after considering the petitioner’s reply and perusing its books of accounts, the department dropped the proceedings viii) In the detailed reply, t circulars issued by the (CBIC) dated June 26, 202 P-9) to augment its argument supplies. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an additional reply dat December 25, 2025 submitt CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 reversal of ITC in respect of supply of exempted goods department. The petitioner replied to the said Show Cause Notice on August 26, 2025 (Annexure P-4) and submitted that the petitioner had availed ITC only to the tune of Rs.6,80,00,226/ to taxable supplies. The petitioner also handed over the supporting documents including ledgers to the department. The respondent No.2 issued a Show Cause N September 29, 2025 (Annexure P-6) in the form of DRC same issues by recording that reply was not satisfactory and the matter was ”. With regard to issue of credit not reply was not satisfactory. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated November 18, (Annexure P-7) wherein the petitioner brought to the notice of the authorities that for the financial year 2020-21, the same issue and after considering the petitioner’s reply and perusing its books of he department dropped the proceedings In the detailed reply, the petitioner circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) dated June 26, 2024 and September 12, 2025 to augment its argument that ITC was availed only for the taxable . Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an additional reply dat December 25, 2025 submitting complete reconciliation of reversal of ITC of exempted goods was raised by the The petitioner replied to the said Show Cause Notice on and submitted that the petitioner had availed ITC only to the tune of Rs.6,80,00,226/- which pertained taxable supplies. The petitioner also handed over the o the department. issued a Show Cause Notice dated in the form of DRC-01 raising the same issues by recording that reply was not satisfactory and the matter was e of credit notes, it was recorded that the The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated November 18, wherein the petitioner brought to the notice of the 21, the same issues were raised and after considering the petitioner’s reply and perusing its books of he department dropped the proceedings against the petitioner. he petitioner had placed reliance on the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and September 12, 2025 (Annexures P-8 and that ITC was availed only for the taxable . Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an additional reply dated ing complete reconciliation of reversal of ITC SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 by its recipients not eligible for reversal. ix) However passed by respondent No.2 confirming the demand proposed to be imposed on the petitioner the impugned order under Section 73 of the been clearly recorded that on perusal of reply submit has transpired that the matter was still “ applicability of ITC reversal. Therefore, the reply filed by the petitioner remained unsatisfactory. 4. Mr. Goyal, petitioner submits that there was a complete non respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order as there was no was “sub-judic by the department through Show Cause Notice DRC 11, 2024 for financial year 202 considering the reply filed by the petitioner and perusing its books of accounts. 5. He vehemently contends that unreasoned one passed without any application of mind. N submissions made it was considered by respondent No.2 who had simply matter was “ unsatisfactory, CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 recipients along with proof thereof, segregating not eligible for reversal. However, the impugned order dated December 30, 2025 respondent No.2 confirming the demand proposed to be imposed on the petitioner in the Show Cause Notice DRC the impugned order under Section 73 of the CGST/ been clearly recorded that on perusal of reply submit transpired that the matter was still “sub applicability of ITC reversal. Therefore, the reply filed by the petitioner remained unsatisfactory. Mr. Goyal, Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was a complete non respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order as there was no ce” qua the merits of the petitioner’s department through Show Cause Notice DRC for financial year 2020-21 were considering the reply filed by the petitioner and perusing its books of He vehemently contends that unreasoned one passed without any application of mind. N submissions made by the petitioner firm nor the reconciliation furnished it was considered by respondent No.2 who had simply matter was “sub-judice” and the reply filed by the p , in the impugned order. Hence, the same should be set along with proof thereof, segregating recipients who were the impugned order dated December 30, 2025 was respondent No.2 confirming the demand proposed to be imposed DRC-01. In the attachment of CGST/PGST Act, 2017 it has been clearly recorded that on perusal of reply submitted by the tax payer, it sub-judice” on merits qua the applicability of ITC reversal. Therefore, the reply filed by the petitioner appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was a complete non-application of mind by respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order as there was no issue that petitioner’s case. The issues raised department through Show Cause Notice DRC-01A dated November ere not proceeded with after considering the reply filed by the petitioner and perusing its books of He vehemently contends that the impugned order is a unreasoned one passed without any application of mind. Neither the nor the reconciliation furnished by it was considered by respondent No.2 who had simply repeated that the reply filed by the petitioner remain Hence, the same should be set-aside. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 6. Issue Notice of motion to the respondents. 7. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the res that no issue was “ in petitioner’s case. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Fr 2025 it transpire accepting the replies filed by the petitioner. Only reply dated November 1 2025 finds mention in the impugned order where the has stated that the disparity in the profit ratio outward supplies remained unexplaine judice” on merits on provided as to were taxable after consideration of CBIC circulars dated September 12, 2025 respondent No.2 came to the finding that the matt merits especially when it was dated November 18, 202 department chose not to proc demand raised 10. In the light of the undisputed facts Kapoor and aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 Issue Notice of motion to the respondents. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and upon instructions submits was “sub-judice” on merits qua applicability of ITC reversal, in petitioner’s case. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the impugned order dated December 30, 2025 it transpires that no cogent reason at all has been provided for not accepting the replies filed by the petitioner. Only reply dated November 1 2025 finds mention in the impugned order where the has stated that the disparity in the profit ratio ward supplies remained unexplained and the matter was still “s ” on merits on applicability of ITC reversal. provided as to which of the outward supplies w were taxable after consideration of CBIC circulars dated September 12, 2025. There is not even a whisper as to the basis on which respondent No.2 came to the finding that the matt especially when it was not disputed that after considering the reply November 18, 2024 to DRC-01A dated chose not to proceed against the petitioner firm in respect of the demand raised for financial year 2020-21. In the light of the undisputed facts and aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the Issue Notice of motion to the respondents. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and upon instructions submits a applicability of ITC reversal, This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the impugned order dated December 30, that no cogent reason at all has been provided for not accepting the replies filed by the petitioner. Only reply dated November 18, 2025 finds mention in the impugned order where the adjudicating authority has stated that the disparity in the profit ratio of tax free and taxable and the matter was still “sub- ITC reversal. No reason at all was ward supplies were tax free and which ones were taxable after consideration of CBIC circulars dated June 26, 2024 and There is not even a whisper as to the basis on which respondent No.2 came to the finding that the matter was “sub-judice” on not disputed that after considering the reply 01A dated September 11, 2024 the eed against the petitioner firm in respect of the In the light of the undisputed facts, fair submissions by Mr. and aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 impugned order dated application of mind and the order shall not preclude the authorities from proceeding Show Cause Notice be done only after considering all the replies filed by the petit fresh opportunity to a repres accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the No.7816 of 202 12. Connected application(s), if any, shall also accordingly. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE APRIL 17, 202 Shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: CWP NO.7816 OF 2026 impugned order dated December 30, 2025 application of mind and the same is set-aside and/or quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the authorities from proceeding Show Cause Notice DRC-01 dated September 29, 2025 but only after considering all the replies filed by the petit fresh opportunity to a representative of the petitioner firm and accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the of 2026 is disposed of. Connected application(s), if any, shall also (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No suffers from complete non- aside and/or quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the authorities from proceeding in terms of the dated September 29, 2025 but the same shall only after considering all the replies filed by the petitioner, giving a entative of the petitioner firm and in With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition, being CWP Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.04.17 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document