Apex Engg Works vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Apex Engg Works, challenged an adjudication order dated 19.05.2023 and a subsequent appellate order dated 29.10.2025 which dismissed its appeal against the adjudication order. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent-State, through its counsel, conceded that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the adjudication order. The High Court considered these facts in its decision.

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 19.05.2023 was indeed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 75(4) of the Act statutorily mandates the revenue to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to an assessee before contemplating any adverse action. The Court noted that its view was consistent with a recent decision in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others. Consequently, the Court set aside both the adjudication order and the appellate order. However, liberty was granted to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, provided they followed the due process of law, including affording a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 19.05.2023 is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by not affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned adjudication order is invalid because no personal hearing was granted before its passing, which contravenes the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act. Revenue's contention: The learned State counsel fairly admitted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of personal hearing prior to the passing of the adjudication order dated 19.05.2023. No further arguments or reliance on provisions/precedents were recorded for the revenue.