IN THE H M/s Silicon Con The Excise and CORAM : HO HO Present : Mr Mr DEEPAK SIBA It adjudication ord was afforded to natural justice b Services Tax Ac 2. In covered in its fa CWP-33977-20 others’. 3. Lea distinguish the (supra) to the pe Sr. No.167 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH CWP- 14020 Date of Deci n Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus e and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Vikrant Kackria, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing C *** SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is not disputed that prior to on order dated 30.03.2026, no oppo ded to the petitioner, which not onl stice but also contravenes Section 75( ax Act, 2017. In the light of the above, the p n its favour by a recent judgment rend 2025 ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. L Learned counsel for the respond h the applicability of Kemexel Eco the petitioner’s case. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH 4020-2026 f Decision :06.05.2026 …Petitioner per Officer Ward No.22 …Respondent EPAK SIBAL PITA BANERJI for the petitioner. nding Counsel for the respondent. ior to passing of the impugned opportunity of personal hearing ot only violates the principles of on 75(4) of the Central Goods and the petitioner’s case would be t rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in vt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and espondent has not been able to el Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.’s case PRINCE SAINI 2026.05.08 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 14020- 4. In 30.03.2026 is s proceed afresh 5. The 06.05.2026 Prince Whether speakin Whether reporta -2026 In view of the above, the impugn is set aside. However, liberty is g fresh against the petitioner, in accordan The petition is allowed in the above (DEEPAK JU (LAPITA JU speaking/reasoned : Yes/No reportable : Yes/No pugned adjudication order dated y is granted to the respondent to cordance with law. above terms. EPAK SIBAL) JUDGE PITA BANERJI) JUDGE -2- PRINCE SAINI 2026.05.08 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document