Hans Steel Rolling Mills vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Hans Steel Rolling Mills, challenged an adjudication order dated May 17, 2023, passed under Section 74 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted before passing the order, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents argued that the judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab (2025) was distinguishable. An appellate order dated July 7, 2025, was also under challenge.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated May 17, 2023, and the appellate order dated July 7, 2025, were invalid. The Court found that the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing prior to the passing of the adjudication order. This failure violated the principles of natural justice and contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates that authorities provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before any adverse action. The Court noted that the respondents had not been able to distinguish the judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab (2025), which was rendered in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. Liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated May 17, 2023, passed under Section 74 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is invalid for failure to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby contravening 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 order was passed without affording a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and a fundamental principle of natural justice. They relied on the judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab (2025). Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab (2025) was not applicable to the petitioner's case and sought to distinguish it.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP- 34243-
IN THE
Hans Steel Ro State of Punjab CORAM : H
H
Present : M
fo
M
DEEPAK SIB
It adjudication o 74 of the Pun financial year the petitioner, also contraven 2017, which m hearing to the 2. In covered in its CWP-33977-2 others’.
L distinguish th (supra) to the p 2025 Sr. No.136
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
CWP- 342 Date of De
lling Mills
… Versus b and others
… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate or the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. *** BAL, J. (Oral)
t is not disputed that prior to order dated 17.05.2023 (Annexu njab Goods and Services Tax 2017-18, no opportunity of pers which not only violates the pri nes Section 75(4) of the Central mandates the respondent-authorit assessee before any adverse acti 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 243-2025 ecision :18.05.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI
o passing
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.