Sameer Sales PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Sameer Sales Pvt. Ltd., challenged an adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 and an appellate order dated 28.08.2025. The core of the dispute revolves around the procedure followed by the revenue authorities. It is undisputed that the adjudication order was passed without providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing. This procedural lapse formed the basis of the petitioner's challenge before the High Court. The revenue authorities are the respondents in this case. The specific tax periods and the amount in dispute are not explicitly recorded in the judgment.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. This was found to be not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also in contravention of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, both the adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 28.08.2025 were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that adherence to principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, is mandatory before passing an adjudication order under the GST Act, and failure to do so vitiates the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 30.04.2024, passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, is violative of 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 adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions by not providing a personal hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State regarding this issue. However, the undisputed fact that no personal hearing was granted implies the revenue did not contest this procedural deficiency.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
( Sr. No. 183 )
CWP No. 15844 of 2026
Date of decision: 21.05.2026
Sameer Sales Pvt. Ltd. .....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 the impugned adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-11) was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. (2)
In the light of the above, the impugned adjudication order 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. Therefore, not only the impugned adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P- 11) but also the appellate order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-13) are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law.
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.