M/S Highway Furniture Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Highway Furniture Industries, challenged a show cause notice dated 05.06.2025 and an order dated 24.07.2025, both passed by respondent No.3 under Section 74 of the Punjab/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the assessment period of 2024-2025 did not fall within the ambit of Section 74, that their objections were not considered, and that they were denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, agreed to remit the matter back to the concerned authority for a fresh order.

Held

The Court held that the matter should be remitted back to the concerned authority. The impugned order dated 24.07.2025 passed by respondent No.3 was set aside. The Court directed that the respondents shall be at liberty to pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It was further clarified that all legal and factual issues would remain open for consideration before the authority concerned. The Court did not decide the core issue of whether Section 74 was correctly invoked for the period 2024-2025, as the matter was disposed of on the basis of the revenue's concession to remit the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the jurisdiction to invoke Section 74 of the Act of 2017 was erroneously exercised by the respondent authority for the assessment period 2024-2025? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessment period of 2024-2025 does not fall within the scope of Section 74 of the Act of 2017, asserting that the invocation of this section was improper. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that their objections regarding this jurisdictional issue were not adequately addressed by the respondents and that they were not provided with a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the respondents-revenue did not contest the petitioner's submissions on merit but instead proposed that the matter be remitted to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, after granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.