An Maizo Worldwide vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, AN Maizo Worldwide, challenged an adjudication order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent-State of Punjab. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided before the impugned order was issued. The State counsel could not distinguish the present case from a prior judgment of the same court in CWP-33977-2025, 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others', decided on 24.03.2026.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The Court found the petitioner's case to be covered by its prior judgment in CWP-33977-2025. Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order passed without providing a personal hearing, where mandated by statute or principles of natural justice, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) is violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, contrary to Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed without affording them a personal hearing, which is a violation of natural justice principles and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on the judgment in CWP-33977-2025. Revenue's argument: The State counsel conceded that they could not distinguish the present case from the precedent set in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, implying an inability to counter the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.136 CWP-17308-2026 Date of decision: 27.05.2026 AN Maizo Worldwide ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
It is not disputed that before passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner’s case would be covered in its favour by a recent judgment rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in CWP-33977-2025 - ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others’ as the impugned adjudication order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned State counsel has not been able to distinguish the applicability of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) to the petitioner’s case. JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.28 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documen
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.