Abrol Engg Co PVT LTD vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Facts
The petitioner, Abrol Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging an adjudication order dated 29.12.2025 and a subsequent order dated 25.03.2026 that dismissed their rectification application. The respondent is the State of Punjab and another authority. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and a rectification application, both of which are now subject to the court's decision.
Held
The Court allowed the present petition, setting aside the impugned adjudication order dated 29.12.2025 and the order dated 25.03.2026 which dismissed the petitioner's rectification application. This decision was based on the consensus between the parties that the issue had been decided in the petitioner's favour by the Court's recent judgment in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, subsequent petitions on identical issues should be decided in line with that precedent. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-revenue to proceed against the petitioner, but only after strictly following the provisions of law, specifically mentioning Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, implying a procedural lapse in the original adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated 29.12.2025 and the order dismissing the rectification application dated 25.03.2026 are liable to be set aside? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under the GST Act). The petitioner argued that the issue stands decided in their favour by a recent judgment of the same court in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others. The respondents (State of Punjab and another) agreed with the petitioner's submission that the issue is covered by the aforementioned judgment.
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. 187 )
CWP No. 10469 of 2026
Date of decision: 07.04.2026
Abrol Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Addl. A. G., Punjab.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1)
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the issue raised through this petition stands decided in the petitioner’s favour by a recent judgment given by us on 24.03.2026 in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce the light of the law laid down in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) resulting in the setting aside of the impugned adjudication order dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) through which the petitioner’s rectification application filed for rectification of the aforesaid orde
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.