M/S Shankar Karyana And Flour Mill vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shankar K Karyana and Flour Mill, is challenging an adjudication order dated August 26, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order pertains to the financial year 2017-2019. The petitioner contends that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, 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 present arguments to distinguish the petitioner's case from a recent judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated August 26, 2024 (Annexure P-10) is set aside. The reasoning was that the order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, which contravenes the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section mandates that authorities must provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing any adverse action. The Court noted that the respondents failed to distinguish the present case from the recent judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, which was relied upon by the petitioner. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated August 26, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violating the principles of natural justice by not providing the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is invalid because it was passed without granting a personal hearing, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice and explicitly required by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on the recent judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra). Revenue's Contention: The respondents (State of Punjab and others) did not present any arguments to distinguish the petitioner's case from the precedent set in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP- 15493-
IN THE
M/s Shankar K State of Punjab CORAM : H
H
Present : M
fo
M
DEEPAK SIB
It adjudication o 73 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.134(2nd cas
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
CWP- 154 Date of De
Karyana and Flour Mill Versus b and others
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate or the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. *** BAL, J. (Oral)
t is not disputed that prior to rder dated 26.08.2024 (Annexur njab Goods and Services Tax 201-1209, no opportunity of per 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. se) B AND HARYANA AT H 493-2025 ecision :18.05.2026
…Petitioner
…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI
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.