Eyecon Control System vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Eyecon Control System, challenged an adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 and a subsequent appellate order dated 16.01.2026 which dismissed their appeal. The petitioner's primary contention was that the adjudication order was invalid because they were not provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing before it was issued. The State counsel conceded that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the adjudication order. The High Court noted that this failure violated both the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 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) mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be offered to an assessee before any adverse action is contemplated. The Court found this view to be consistent with its recent decision in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others. Consequently, the Court ordered the setting aside of both the adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 and the appellate order dated 16.01.2026. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, provided they followed the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act, by offering a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was invalid and liable to be set aside solely because no opportunity for a personal hearing was afforded to them prior to its issuance, which contravened the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The State counsel fairly admitted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing before the adjudication order was passed.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
( Sr. No. 180 )
CWP No. 11749 of 2026
Date of decision: 21.04.2026
M/s Eyecon Control System .....Petitioner
Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1)
Through the instant petition challenge is made to the adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) as also to the order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the appellate authority through which the petitioner’s appeal filed by it to challenge therein the adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 was dismissed. (2)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned adjudication order dated 30.03.2022 is liable to be set aside solely because prior to its issuance, no opportunity of personal hearing was even offered to the petitioner which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also Section 75(4) of the Central
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.