J K Pins INDIA vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, J. K. Pins (India), challenged an adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 and an appellate order dated 10.03.2026. The core of the dispute, as highlighted by the Court, was that the impugned adjudication order was passed without providing the assessee with an opportunity for a personal hearing. This procedural lapse was not disputed by the respondents. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, and the respondent-State was represented. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided judgment excerpt.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. This was found to be not only a violation of the principles of natural justice but also a contravention of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court set aside both the adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 and the appellate order dated 10.03.2026. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically by denying a personal hearing as mandated by law, is unsustainable. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 28.02.2025, passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, is violative of the principles of natural justice and contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the lack of a personal hearing vitiated the order. The respondent-State did not dispute this fact. The Court had to determine if this procedural defect rendered the adjudication order and subsequent appellate order invalid. The question hinges on the interpretation and application of the principles of natural justice and the specific mandate of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which requires an opportunity of being heard before passing an order.
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. 179 )
CWP No. 15186 of 2026
Date of decision: 21.05.2026
J. K. Pins (India) .....Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Ms. Geetika Sharma, 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 28.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) 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 28.02.2025 (Annexure P- 6) but also the appellate order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. (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.