Ms The Kurali Coop L And C Society LTD Opposite Modern Stationer vs. State Of Pnjab And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s The Kural Coop L and C Society Ltd., challenged an adjudication order dated 30.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was afforded to them before its issuance. The impugned order was passed by the respondent-State. The amount in dispute is not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the adjudication order without providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, violates the principles of natural justice. It was further held that the order is in contravention of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that adherence to natural justice principles and statutory provisions like Section 75(4) is mandatory before passing an adjudication order. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order passed without affording a personal hearing, when required by law or principles of natural justice, is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondent-State was granted liberty to proceed afresh with the adjudication in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 30.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violating the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner a personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and is also in contravention of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, because no personal hearing was granted before its passing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent-State.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE M/s The Kural
State of Punjab CORAM : H
H
Present : M
fo
M
DEEPAK SIB
It order dated 30 and Services T personal hearin
In principles of n the CGST Ac (Annexure P-3 against the pet
April 06, 202 vandana
Whether speak Whether repor Sr. No.178
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CWP-1005 Date of De
li Coop L and C Society Ltd.
Versus b and others
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab. *** BAL, J. (Oral)
t is not disputed before us that be 0.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) under Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST ng was afforded to the petitioner n light of the above, the impugne natural justice but also is in contr ct, 2017. Accordingly, the impu 3) is set aside with liberty to the titioner afresh, in accordance wit
(DEEPA
J (LAPIT
J
26
king/reasoned :
Yes/No rtable :
Yes/No B AND HARYANA AT H 56 of 2026 ecision : 06.04.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI
efore passing the adjudication r Section 73 of Central Goods Act, 2017’) no opportunity of r. ed order not only violates the ravention of Section 75 (4) of ugned order dated 30.12.2025 e respondent-State to proceed th law. AK SIBAL) JUDGE
TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.04.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.