Bhuvnesh Entp vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Bhuvnesh Entp., challenged an adjudication order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the revenue authorities under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order pertained to the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that they were not provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed. The revenue authorities are the respondents in this case. The procedural history involves the passing of the adjudication order and the subsequent filing of the writ petition before the High Court.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 75(4) statutorily mandates the revenue to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to an assessee before contemplating any adverse action. Since the petitioner was not afforded this opportunity, the order was deemed unsustainable. The Court directed the setting aside of the impugned adjudication order. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner, provided they strictly followed the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory mandate for personal hearing cannot be bypassed, and non-compliance vitiates the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, specifically Section 75(4) of the Act, due to the absence of a personal hearing for the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contravened Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates an opportunity of personal hearing before any adverse action. The petitioner relied on the fact that no personal hearing was afforded. The revenue did not present any arguments in opposition.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 125 CWP-9118-2026 Date of decision : 25.05.2026 Bhuvnesh Entp.
.…. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A. G., Punjab. * * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1)
It is not disputed that before passing the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short – the Act), pertaining to the financial year 2019-20, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing. (2)
In the light of the above, the impugned adjudication order is not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Act which statutorily mandates the revenue to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to an assessee before any adverse action under the Act is contemplated. (3
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.