M/S S.K. Trading Company vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s S.K. Trading Company, challenged an adjudication order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-3) and an appellate order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent-State of Punjab and others. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided before the adjudication order was passed. The respondent-State, represented by the learned State counsel, could not distinguish the present case from a previous judgment rendered by the High Court in a similar matter.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 25.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 06.11.2025 were not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The Court found that the respondent-State could not distinguish the present case from its prior judgment in CWP-33977-2025 - ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others’. Consequently, the Court set aside both the adjudication and appellate orders. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory order passed without providing a mandatory personal hearing, as stipulated by principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, is unsustainable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated 25.04.2024 is violative of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, which contravenes the principles of natural justice and the specific provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on the High Court's recent judgment in CWP-33977-2025 - ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others’. Revenue's Argument: The respondent-State, through the learned State counsel, was unable to distinguish the applicability of the precedent case ('Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.') to the petitioner's situation.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH 104
CWP-36573-2025
Date of Decision: 27.05.2026
M/s S.K. Trading Company
... Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. R.K. Bajaj, 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 25.04.2024 (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 25.04.2024 (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
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.