G V Traders vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s G. V. Traders, challenged an adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 passed by the State of Punjab and others. The petitioner contended that the order was liable to be set aside because no opportunity of personal hearing was provided prior to its passing, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The State counsel conceded that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order was issued. The High Court considered this admission and the relevant statutory provision.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 was indeed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section statutorily mandates the State to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to an assessee before contemplating any adverse action. The Court noted that its view was consistent with a recent decision in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, which the State counsel did not distinguish. Consequently, the Court directed the setting aside of the impugned adjudication order. However, liberty was granted to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, provided they followed the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act, by affording a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by not affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned adjudication order should be set aside solely on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was offered, which contravenes both the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The learned State counsel fairly admitted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of personal hearing prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 28.04.2024.
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. 106 CWP-6901-2025 Date of decision : 08.05.2026 M/s G. V. Traders
.…. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A. G., Punjab.
* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1)
Through the instant petition challenge is made to the adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-8). (2)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned adjudication order is liable to be set aside solely for the reason that prior to the passing of such order no opportunity of personal hearing was even offered to the petitioner which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short – the Act). (3)
Learned State counsel fairly admits that prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 28.
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.