Anand Enterprises vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Facts
The petitioner, Anand Enterprises, challenged an adjudication order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the respondent-State of Punjab and another authority. 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 was unable to distinguish the present case from a previous judgment of the High Court in CWP-33977-2025, 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others', which dealt with a similar issue. The amount in dispute is not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the passing of the adjudication order and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 11.12.2025 was violative of the principles of natural justice because no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. This contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that the respondent-State could not provide any distinguishing facts or arguments to differentiate 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 the impugned adjudication order. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order passed without providing a personal hearing to the assessee, in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, is unsustainable. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated 11.12.2025 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 contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on the High Court's own recent judgment in CWP-33977-2025, 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others'. Revenue's contention: The respondent-State, represented by the learned State counsel, could not distinguish the applicability of the precedent case ('Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.') to the petitioner's case.
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.169 CWP-17514-2026 Date of decision: 27.05.2026 Anand Enterprises ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Mukul Singla, 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 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-5), 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 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) 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 do
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.