IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 121 CWP-13030-2026 Date of Decision: 04.05.2026 M/S ALPHA TEST HOUSE SERVICE ...Petitioner Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bishnoi Abhimanyu, Advocate and Mr. Kartik Gandhi, Advocate Mr. Ravinder Singh Vohra, Advocate, Mr. Sauravdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arshad Ali, Advocate for respondent-UOI Mr. Varun Singh Dhanda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of order dated 23.04.2026 whereby its recognition has been suspended for minor error which was corrected before issuance of show cause notice dated 16.04.2026. It is further seeking stay of impugned suspension order dated 23.04.2026. 2. The petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership firm is engaged in rendering services of Analytical Testing Laboratory. It is rendering service not only pan India but also at international level. It DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.04 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13030-2026 -2- issued an invoice dated 18.02.2026 to its overseas client M/s Thai Asia Metal and Techno Industry for an amount of USD 8840. Due to some inadvertent calculation error and currency related discrepancy, the invoiced amount turned out to be higher than intended. Upon taking notice of the mistake, it rectified the same in March’ 2026 and refunded the excess amount to its client. A show cause notice dated 16.04.2026 was issued by respondents on the ground of violation of Clause 5 (g) of Terms and Conditions of BIS/LRS/2020. It claims that respondent without giving them opportunity of personal hearing and considering their reply issued suspension order dated 26.04.2026. 3. Reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Gulshan Kumar, Scientist- D/Joint Director, Bureau of Indian Standards along with Power of Attorney filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 4 are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 4 submits that there is no evidence disclosing that petitioner has refunded overcharged amount, thus, suspension order cannot be recalled. 5. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already refunded overcharged amount. This fact was brought in the knowledge of respondents, however, they did not notice, nevertheless, petitioner would appear before authorities, if directed by this Court and submit evidence of refund of overcharged amount. 6. In the wake of statement of both sides, the instant petition stands disposed of with a direction to petitioner to appear before respondent No.4 on 05.05.2026 at 11:00AM along with evidence DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.04 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13030-2026 -3- disclosing refund of overcharged amount. The respondent would consider evidence and pass fresh order keeping in mind para 7.2 of Bureau of Indian Standards and the fact that petitioner’s laboratory has already remained non-working for almost two weeks. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE May 04, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.04 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document