MS SHAKTI ENGG WORKS vs UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, — CWP/12553/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 12th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010673982026
e-Filing Number
21-04-2026
Filing Number
CWP/24063/2026
Filing Date
21-Apr-2026
Registration No
CWP/12553/2026
Registration Date
22-Apr-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji
Coram
Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji
Bench Type
Double
Category
6.42 - GOODS AND SERVICE TAX WRIT HARYANA (INDIRECT) ( 392 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
12-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--ALLOWED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MS SHAKTI ENGG WORKS
Adv. AVNEET SINGH
-
2.Union of India, through Secretary,
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY,
-
2.Union of India, through Secretary,
-
3.State of Haryana
-
4.Excise and Taxation Officer,
-
5.Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner
-
6.Central Board of Indirect Taxes,
-
7.Goods and Service Tax Network
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-May-2026
Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal,ms. Justice Lapita BanerjiView PDF
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside a GST adjudication order dated 25.02.2025 and its consequential appellate order dated 19.03.2026 against M/s Shakti Engg. Works, finding that the adjudication order violated natural justice principles and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as no hearing opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before its issuance. The respondents were permitted to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
21-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/12553/2026
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside a GST adjudication order dated 25.02.2025 and its consequential appellate order dated 19.03.2026 against M/s Shakti Engg. Works, finding that the adjudication order violated natural justice principles and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as no hearing opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before its issuance. The respondents were permitted to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts