Raman Auto Electricals vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Raman Auto Electricals, is challenging an adjudication order dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pertaining to the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contends that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided before the order was passed, 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, have not been able to distinguish a recent judgment relied upon by the petitioner. The Court also notes an appellate order dated 18.06.2025 in this matter.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 23.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 18.06.2025 are set aside. The reasoning is that the adjudication order was passed without providing the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing, which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also contravenes 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 found that the respondents failed to distinguish the precedent set in the 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.' case, which dealt with similar circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of personal hearing before passing an adverse order under GST law renders the order unsustainable. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 23.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the adjudication order is bad in law as it was passed without affording them a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and violates the principles of natural justice. They rely on the recent judgment in 'Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others' (dated 24.03.2026). Revenue's arguments: The respondents (State of Punjab and others) have not been able to distinguish the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP- 27316-
IN THE
M/s Raman Au 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
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
CWP- 273 Date of De
uto Electricals
… 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 order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexu njab Goods and Services Tax 2018-19, 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 316-2025 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.