Ms Best Agrolife Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Best Agrolife Ltd. and others, are challenging an adjudication order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Rohtak. The petitioners had filed a written response on 10.07.2025 to a show cause notice dated 26.06.2025. However, it is undisputed that the proper officer ignored this written response while passing the impugned adjudication order. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of a show cause notice, the petitioners' response, and the subsequent adjudication order that allegedly failed to consider the response.

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 15.12.2025 was liable to be set aside because the proper officer had ignored the written response filed by the petitioners on 10.07.2025 to the show cause notice dated 26.06.2025. The Court found this to be a significant procedural flaw. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the response was not considered. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order passed without considering the assessee's response to a show cause notice, despite it being filed, violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned adjudication order and granted liberty to the respondents-revenue to proceed afresh. This fresh proceeding must include considering the petitioners' written response and affording them an opportunity of personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 15.12.2025 is liable to be set aside for having been passed without considering the written response filed by the petitioners on 10.07.2025 to the show cause notice dated 26.06.2025, thereby violating principles of natural justice? The petitioners argued that the proper officer ignored their written response, which is a procedural lapse. The revenue did not present any arguments on this point, as indicated by the judgment.