1. Title of the Case
| Case Title | Rajesh Garg v. The Commissioner of Excise & Taxation Officer, Ward-02, Sonipat, Rohtak, Haryana and Another (as described in the cause title) |
| Case Number | CWP-31274-2026 (O&M); Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:182937-DB; CNR No. PHHC011621772026 |
| Court and Bench | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Division Bench). Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Chief Justice, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor |
| Date of Order | 30 September 2026 |
| Relevant Provisions | The order does not expressly cite any statutory provision. Provisions relevant to the subject matter: Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Haryana GST Act, 2017 (opportunity of hearing before an adverse decision); Section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017 (Electronic Credit Ledger); principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) |
2. Summary of the Judgment
Facts of the Case. The petitioner, Rajesh Garg, assailed an Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Haryana Excise and Taxation authorities, along with any recovery made from his Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) pursuant to it (Para 5). His case was that the Department had sent him a message fixing 16.03.2026 as the date of personal hearing, whereas the order itself was passed two days earlier, on 14.03.2026. On 23.09.2026, the Court adjourned the matter on joint request and directed the respondents to obtain instructions on this assertion (Para 1).
Issues for Determination. The issue was whether an Order-in-Original passed before the date of personal hearing communicated to the taxpayer could be sustained, and whether the Revenue could disown that communication on the ground that it was system-generated (Paras 1 and 3).
Findings and Observations of the Court. On instructions, counsel for the Revenue accepted that a system-generated message had been sent to the petitioner fixing the hearing on 16.03.2026 (Para 2). The Court held that, once this fact stood admitted, the order could not have been passed on 14.03.2026, even before the date fixed for hearing. It observed that the Revenue cannot disown its own communication merely because it was system-generated, and that the denial of an effective opportunity of hearing was clearly evident (Para 3). Counsel for the Revenue then requested that, instead of keeping the matter pending, the authority be permitted to revisit the issue (Para 4).
Verdict and Basis of the Judgment. Recording the fair stand of the Revenue, the Division Bench set aside the Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2026 and gave the respondents liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. It further directed that any recovery already made from the petitioner’s ECL shall abide by the fresh order. The writ petition was allowed (Paras 5 and 6).
Analysis of the Judgment. The ruling is short but significant in an era of portal-driven adjudication. Hearing notices, reminders and dates generated on the GST portal are acts of the Department, and the proper officer is bound by them. An officer who decides a matter before the hearing date the Department itself communicated renders the hearing illusory. Although the order does not refer to any provision, the outcome accords with the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST law. Notably, the Court did not direct an immediate refund of the ECL debit; it kept that recovery subject to the outcome of the fresh adjudication, preserving the interests of both sides.
Legal Takeaway. An order passed before the hearing date intimated to the taxpayer, even through a system-generated message, is vitiated for denial of natural justice and is liable to be set aside, and the Revenue cannot escape its own communication by attributing it to the system. Taxpayers should preserve screenshots and copies of every portal message fixing hearing dates, since such records can decisively establish the breach before the writ court.
3. Tabular Summary
| Sl. No. | Case Title | Case No. / Citation | Court / Bench | Date of Order | Facts & Issue | Verdict & Basis of Judgment | Key Legal Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rajesh Garg v. Commissioner of Excise & Taxation Officer, Ward-02, Sonipat, Rohtak, Haryana and Another | CWP-31274-2026 (O&M); 2026:PHHC:182937-DB | High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Division Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, CJ and Rohit Kapoor, J) | 30.09.2026 | Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2026 was passed although a system-generated departmental message had fixed personal hearing on 16.03.2026. Issue: whether such an order survives and whether the Revenue can disown a system-generated message. | Order set aside. The Revenue admitted the message; the Department cannot disown its system-generated communication; denial of effective hearing evident. Fresh order to be passed after personal hearing; ECL recovery to abide by fresh order. Writ allowed. | An order passed before the hearing date communicated by the Department, even via a system-generated message, violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed. |
Download the judgment: Case Laws folder (judgment PDF )
.){kind=link}