Saira International vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Saira International, challenged an adjudication order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) and a subsequent appellate order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted before the adjudication order was passed, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents, the State of Punjab and others, did not dispute the lack of personal hearing. The court noted that the petitioner's case was covered by a recent judgment in 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others'. The respondents failed to distinguish the Kemexel case from the present one.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) and the appellate order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) were unsustainable. The Court found that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the adjudication order was passed, which violated the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the respondents failed to distinguish the present case from its recent judgment in 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others', which dealt with similar facts. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 06.10.2023, passed without affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the absence of a personal hearing before the passing of the adjudication order contravened the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before adverse action is taken against an assessee. They relied on the judgment in 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others'. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (State of Punjab and others) did not present any argument to distinguish the present case from the 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.' judgment and implicitly conceded the issue by failing to provide a counter-argument.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP- 16690-
IN THE
Saira Internatio
State of Punjab CORAM : H
H
Present : M
fo
M
DEEPAK SIB
It adjudication o personal hearin principles of Central Goods authorities to adverse action
In covered in its CWP-33977-2 others’.
L distinguish th (supra) to the p 2026 Sr. No.119
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
CWP- 166 Date of De
onal
… Versus b and others
… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate or the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. *** BAL, J. (Oral)
t is not disputed that before order dated 06.10.2023 (Annex ng was afforded to the petitione natural justice but also contra s and Services Tax Act, 2017, wh provide opportunity of hearing n is taken against the assessee. n the light of the above, the favour by a recent judgment ren 2025 ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. earned counsel for the respon e applicability of Kemexel E petitioner’s case. B AND HARYANA AT H 690-2026 ecision :26.05.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI
e passing of the impugned xure P-2), no opportunity o
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.