Judgment
113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-29477-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 SANAN VALVES AND TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present:
Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate (through video conferencing) for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab.
***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CJ (Oral) 1.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the writ petition raises various issues, he confines the challenge only to the orders dated 29.12.2023 and 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-3) primarily on the ground that the same have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned.
2.
Learned counsel for the revenue fairly admits that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3.
Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. Section 75(4) of the Act, reads as under:- RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.14 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
CWP-29477-2026 (O&M)
2 “Section 75(4) in The Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:
(4)An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.” 4.
Similar issue also came up for adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-33977-2025, decided on 24.03.2026, wherein, the Division Bench held as under:- “10. In the light of the above discussion, the present petition is accepted, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned adjudication/assessment order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). However, liberty is granted to the respondent-revenue to proceed against the petitioner but only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act.
5.
In that view of the matter, the present petition also stands disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
6.
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] CHIEF JUSTICE [ROHIT KAPOOR]
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 Rahul Joshi 1. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether Reportable Yes/No RAHUL JOSHI 2026.09.14 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD