BharatTaxGST

Shade X Creations vs. Excise And Taxation Officer (State GST), Ward 5 And Others

Original PDF →
CWP/20548/2025HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01112256202501 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

CWP-20548-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.247 CWP-20548-2025 Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Shade X Creations ....Petitioner Versus Excise and Taxation Officer (State GST) and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Vivek Sarin, Advocate (through VC) and Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Through notice dated 22.12.2023, the petitioner was put to notice for having claimed excess input tax credit to which notice the petitioner filed a written response dated 22.01.2024. However, in paragraph no.3 of the adjudication order dated 29.04.2024, it was observed that the petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory whereas in paragraph no.5 of the same order it found mention that no written response to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 22.12.2023 had been filed by the petitioner. When through a rectification application, the petitioner brought the afore discrepancy to the notice of the author of the adjudication order dated 29.04.2024, such application was dismissed on 30.04.2025, on the ground that there was no clerical or arithmetical error in the adjudication order dated 29.04.2024. 2. After perusing the adjudication order dated 29.04.2024, we find JYOTI SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-20548-2025 -2- that in paragraph 3 thereof it is observed that the petitioner's response was not found to be satisfactory but in paragraph 5 of the same order it is recorded that the petitioner did not file any written response. It is thus clear that while passing the impugned adjudication order dated 29.04.2024, its author has not applied its mind.

3.

In the light of the above, the adjudication order dated 29.04.2024 and the order dated 30.04.2025 rejecting the petitioner's rectification application are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent – State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 22.12.2023 but only after considering the petitioner's written response dated 22.01.2024 and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

4.

Needless to add that the recovery, if any, made in pursuance to the aforesaid adjudication order dated 29.04.2024 shall abide by the fresh reasoned order to be passed by the respondent authorities in terms of the present order.

5.

The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE April 01, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.