D Motor Company India Private H D Motor Company India Private Limited v. State of Haryana State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aakriti, Advocate, Ms. Aakriti, Advocate, for the petitioner. for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Additional A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Additional A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Additional A.G., Haryana. DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) DEEPAK SIBAL *** 18, the petitioner was served For the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner was served For a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, requiring it to explain the a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 with a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 discrepancy in the in the claim of input tax credit to which the petitioner fi input tax credit to which the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 24.11.2023. Thereafter, personal hearing detailed reply dated 24.11 ersonal hearing was granted to the petitioner. After considering the petitioner’s written response and oral the petitioner. After considering the petitioner’s written response and oral the petitioner. After considering the petitioner’s written response and oral through order dated 05.12.2023, submissions, through order dated 05.12.2023 respondent No.2 dropped the proceedings initiated through the afore referred show initiated against the petitioner through the afore referred show The respondents did not challenge the order cause notice dated 25.09.2023. The respondents did not challenge the order cause notice dated 25.09.2023 dated 05.12.2023. dated 05.12.2023.

2. Another show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 A nother show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 was then served upon the petitioner. The second show cause upon the petitioner. notice dated 03.08.2024 was based on the same facts show cause notice dated 25.09.2023. on the same facts as the earlier show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 To the second show cause notice the petitioner filed a detailed written To the second show cause notice the petitioner filed a detailed written To the second show cause notice the petitioner filed a detailed written response dated 03.09.2024 through which the respondent response dated 03.09.2024 throu gh which the respondents were informed VANDANA 2026.04.10 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 CWP-10647-2025 that the second show cause notice was barred by the principles of res that the second show cause notice was barred by the principles of that the second show cause notice was barred by the principles of judicata and that in any case jurisdiction as it amounted to a and that in any case, it was without jurisdiction as it amounted to a review of the afore referred order dated 05.12.2023, which power was not review of the afore referred order dated 05.12.2023 review of the afore referred order dated 05.12.2023 vested with the author of the second show cause notice. What followed was vested with the author of the second show cause notice. What f vested with the author of the second show cause notice. What f cation order dated 04.02.2025 requiring the petitioner to deposit cation order dated 04.02.2025 requiring the adjudication order dated 04.02.2025 requiring the tax determined determined through it. Interest and penalty nterest and penalty were also demanded. Such adjudication tion order dated 04.02.2025, is the is the subject matter of challenge instant petition. through the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and able assistance , the record of the case has also been perused. tance, the record of the case has also been perused.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent L respondent-revenue fairly admits that decided against the petitioner through the impugned adjudication decided against the petitioner through the impugned the issues decided against the petitioner through the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 are identical to those order dated 04.02.2025 are those which had earlier been in the petitioner’s favour through order dated 05.12.2023 and adjudicated in the petitioner’s favour through order dated 05.12.2023 and in the petitioner’s favour through order dated 05.12.2023 and revenue did not file any appeal against the order dated that the respondent-revenue did not file any appeal against the order dated that the respondent

05.12.2023 allowing it to attain finality as also that there is no statutory 05.12.2023 allowing it to attain finality as also that there is no 05.12.2023 allowing it to attain finality as also that there is no revenue to revisit the order dated provision empowering the respondent-revenue to revisit the order dated provision empowering

05.12.2023.

5. above, we have no hesitation to hold that the In light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the In light of the impugned adjudicati adjudication order dated 04.02.2025 is not on order dated 04.02.2025 is not only hit by the , in the absence of a statutory power principles of res judiciata but, in the absence of a statutory power principles of permitting so, jurisdiction as it amounts to review of the earlier it also lacks jurisdiction as it amounts to review of the earlier order dated 05.12.2023 through which, on the same facts order dated 05.12.2023 through which on the same facts, on which is based the impugned adjudication order, the respondent the impugned adjudication order, the respondent-revenue had decided to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, is set aside. However, However, in case the respondent in case the respondent- revenue has any remedy VANDANA 2026.04.10 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 CWP-10647-2025 available to it in law to challenge the order dated 05.12.2023 available to it in law to challenge order dated 05.12.2023 (Annexure P- 7), it shall be at liberty to avail , it shall be at liberty to avail of the same.

6. The petition is allowed in the above terms. The petition is allowed in the above The petition is allowed in the above (DEEPAK DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE , 2026 April 06, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : ther speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2026.04.10 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document