CWP-10647-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s H D Motor Company India Private State of Haryana and another CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aakriti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Additional A.G., Haryana. DEEPAK SIBAL For with a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 discrepancy in the detailed reply dated 24.11 the petitioner. After considering the petitioner’s written response and oral submissions, through order dated 05.12.2023 proceedings initiated cause notice dated 25.09.2023 dated 05.12.2023. 2. A upon the petitioner. based on the same facts To the second show cause notice the petitioner filed a detailed written response dated 03.09.2024 throu 2025 Sr. No.254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10647 Date of Decision : H D Motor Company India Private Limited Versus State of Haryana and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aakriti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Additional A.G., Haryana. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) For the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner was served a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 in the claim of input tax credit to which the petitioner fi detailed reply dated 24.11.2023. Thereafter, personal hearing the petitioner. After considering the petitioner’s written response and oral through order dated 05.12.2023, initiated against the petitioner through the afore referred show cause notice dated 25.09.2023. The respondents did not challenge the order dated 05.12.2023. Another show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 upon the petitioner. The second show cause 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 response dated 03.09.2024 through which the respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 10647-2025 Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 Limited …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sourabh Goel, Additional A.G., Haryana. 18, the petitioner was served a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, requiring it to explain the input tax credit to which the petitioner filed a ersonal hearing was granted to the petitioner. After considering the petitioner’s written response and oral respondent No.2 dropped the through the afore referred show The respondents did not challenge the order nother show cause notice dated 03.08.2024 was then served notice dated 03.08.2024 was show cause notice dated 25.09.2023. To the second show cause notice the petitioner filed a detailed written gh which the respondents were informed VANDANA 2026.04.10 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10647-2025 that the second show cause notice was barred by the principles of judicata and that in any case review of the afore referred order dated 05.12.2023 vested with the author of the second show cause notice. What f the adjudication order dated 04.02.2025 requiring the tax determined Such adjudication through the instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and able assistance 4. L the issues decided against the petitioner through the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 are adjudicated in the petitioner’s favour through order dated 05.12.2023 and that the respondent 05.12.2023 allowing it to attain finality as also that there is no provision empowering 05.12.2023. 5. In light of the impugned adjudicati principles of permitting so, order dated 05.12.2023 through which the impugned adjudication drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, is set aside. However, 2025 that the second show cause notice was barred by the principles of and that in any case, it was without jurisdiction as it amounted to a review of the afore referred order dated 05.12.2023 vested with the author of the second show cause notice. What f cation order dated 04.02.2025 requiring determined through it. Interest and penalty tion order dated 04.02.2025, is the instant petition. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and tance, the record of the case has also been perused. Learned counsel for the respondent decided against the petitioner through the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 are identical to those in the petitioner’s favour through order dated 05.12.2023 and that the respondent-revenue did not file any appeal against the order dated 05.12.2023 allowing it to attain finality as also that there is no provision empowering the respondent-revenue to revisit the order dated In light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the adjudication order dated 04.02.2025 is not principles of res judiciata but, in the absence of a statutory power it also lacks jurisdiction as it amounts to review of the earlier order dated 05.12.2023 through which, on the same facts the impugned adjudication order, the respondent drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, However, in case the respondent that the second show cause notice was barred by the principles of res jurisdiction as it amounted to a review of the afore referred order dated 05.12.2023, which power was not vested with the author of the second show cause notice. What followed was cation order dated 04.02.2025 requiring the petitioner to deposit nterest and penalty were also demanded. is the subject matter of challenge Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their , the record of the case has also been perused. respondent-revenue fairly admits that decided against the petitioner through the impugned adjudication those which had earlier been in the petitioner’s favour through order dated 05.12.2023 and revenue did not file any appeal against the order dated 05.12.2023 allowing it to attain finality as also that there is no statutory revenue to revisit the order dated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the on order dated 04.02.2025 is not only hit by the , in the absence of a statutory power jurisdiction as it amounts to review of the earlier on the same facts, on which is based order, the respondent-revenue had decided to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order in case the respondent- revenue has any remedy VANDANA 2026.04.10 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10647-2025 available to it in law to challenge 7), it shall be at liberty to avail 6. The petition is allowed in the above April 06, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 available to it in law to challenge the order dated 05.12.2023 , it shall be at liberty to avail of the same. The petition is allowed in the above (DEEPAK JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No order dated 05.12.2023 (Annexure P- The petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.04.10 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document