The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a tax adjudication order passed two days before the date communicated to the taxpayer for a personal hearing, holding that the Revenue cannot disown its own communication merely because it was system-generated.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor has observed that passing an order before the scheduled hearing denied the taxpayer an effective opportunity to present his case and permitted the authorities to decide the matter afresh after granting a personal hearing. 

Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) E-Magazine September 2026

The petitioner’s grievance was that the department had sent him a message fixing March 16, 2026, as the date for his personal hearing. However, the adjudication order had already been passed on March 14, 2026, before he could appear on the communicated date.

During an earlier hearing on September 23, 2026, the High Court directed the respondents to obtain instructions on the petitioner’s assertion regarding the discrepancy between the hearing date and the date of the order.

When the matter was taken up on September 30, 2026, counsel for the department confirmed, on instructions, that a system-generated message had been sent to the petitioner fixing the hearing for March 16, 2026.

The central legal issue was whether the department could pass an adjudication order before the hearing date stated in its own system-generated communication.

The High Court held that once the Revenue admitted that the taxpayer had been informed of a hearing on March 16, the order could not have been passed on March 14.

Rejecting any attempt to distance the department from the automated message, the Bench observed: “The respondent-Revenue cannot disown its own communication merely on the ground that it was system-generated.”

The Court found that the sequence of events clearly established denial of an effective opportunity of hearing. 

The department submitted that, instead of keeping the proceedings pending before the High Court, the authority could be permitted to revisit the issue.

The Bench set aside the Order-in-Original dated March 14, 2026. It granted the respondents liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.

The relief therefore requires the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter through a fresh decision after hearing the taxpayer. The Court did not determine the underlying tax dispute on its merits.

The High Court also addressed the treatment of any recovery already made from the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger.

It directed that any such recovery would abide by the fresh orders passed in accordance with law. Consequently, the judgment does not direct an immediate, unconditional restoration of any recovered amount; its treatment will depend on the fresh adjudication.

The Court also disposed of any pending applications.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: 2 Adjoining Flats Can Qualify For Capital Gain Exemption: ITAT