Nadar Prints vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. Section 75(4) stipulates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. The Court noted the concession made by the learned counsel for the Revenue that a personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. The Court also referred to a previous decision in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-33977-2025, decided on 24.03.2026, where a similar issue was addressed, and the impugned order was set aside with liberty to the revenue to proceed after following the provisions of law, including Section 75(4). Consequently, the present petition was disposed of in terms of the said precedent. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and grant liberty to the revenue to pass fresh orders after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Nadar Prints, challenged an order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent-State of Punjab and another authority. The petitioner confined their challenge to the ground that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically that no personal hearing was afforded. The revenue, represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, conceded that a personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The revenue further agreed to pass fresh orders after providing the petitioner with due opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, by failing to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was afforded. They relied on Section 75(4) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. Revenue's contention: The revenue conceded that an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. They agreed to pass fresh orders after providing due opportunity of hearing.