Gogia Forgings vs. Excise And Taxation Officer Cum State Tax Officer Ludhiana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Gogia Forgings, challenged an adjudication order dated February 27, 2025, and an appellate order dated January 21, 2026. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was a copy of the attachment notice and lacked reasons, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue, represented by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-State Tax Officer, Ludhiana, conceded that the adjudication order was unsustainable due to a lack of reasons. The appellate order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the adjudication order on grounds of delay.

Held

The Court held that the adjudication order dated February 27, 2025, was unsustainable in law. The reasoning was that the order was a copy of the attachment notice and lacked independent reasons, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it was in conflict with Section 75(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates that every adjudication order must be a reasoned one. The Court also noted that the appellate order dated January 21, 2026, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the adjudication order on the ground of delay, was consequently set aside. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order must be reasoned and not a mere reproduction of prior notices to comply with statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed to the extent that the adjudication and appellate orders were set aside, and the revenue was granted liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of the show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated February 27, 2025, is liable to be set aside for being a copy of the attachment notice and for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and Section 75(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was unsustainable as it was a mere reproduction of the attachment notice and lacked independent reasoning. This violated the principles of natural justice and Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, which mandates a reasoned adjudication order. Revenue's arguments: The learned State counsel fairly admitted that the impugned adjudication order was unsustainable in law, not only for violating the principles of natural justice but also for being in conflict with Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, which requires a reasoned adjudication order.