Silicon Construction PVT LTD vs. The Excise And Taxation Officer Cum Proper Officer Ward 22
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Silicon Constructions Pvt. Ltd., challenged an adjudication order dated March 30, 2026, passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Ward No. 22. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent, the revenue authority, did not dispute these facts. The petitioner's case was also covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in CWP-33977-2025 and others.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated March 30, 2026, was indeed passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court found that the respondent failed to distinguish the present case from the precedent set in 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others'. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated March 30, 2026, is liable to be set aside for violating 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 arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed without providing them with a personal hearing, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice and explicitly mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on the High Court's recent judgment in 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others' (dated March 24, 2025), which they argued was directly applicable to their case. Revenue's arguments: The respondent (revenue) failed to distinguish the 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.' case from the present petitioner's situation and did not present any arguments to counter the petitioner's claim.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE
M/s Silicon Co The Excise and
CORAM : H
H
Present : M
M
DEEPAK SIB
It adjudication o was afforded natural justice Services Tax A 2. In covered in its CWP-33977-2 others’.
L distinguish th (supra) to the p
Sr. No.167
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
CWP- 140 Date of De
onstructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus d Taxation Officer-cum-Proper O
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Vikrant Kackria, Advocate fo Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing *** BAL, J. (Oral)
t is not disputed that prior to order dated 30.03.2026, no opp to the petitioner, which not on but also contravenes Section 75 Act, 2017. n the light of the above, the favour by a recent judgment ren 2025 ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. earned counsel for the respon e applicability of Kemexel E petitioner’s case. B AND HARYANA AT H 020-2026 ecision :06.05.2026
…Petitioner
Officer Ward No.22 …Respondent AK SIBAL A BANERJI or the petitioner. g Counsel for the respondent. o passing of the impugned portunity of personal hearing nly violates the principles of 5(4) of the Cent
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.