Naveen Garg vs. State Of Haryana And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Naveen Garg, challenged an adjudication order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the State of Haryana. 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 fairly admitted that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before the adjudication order was passed. The petition also challenged certain notifications, but this aspect was kept open for decision in an appropriate case.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 29.04.2024 was in violation of both the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 75(4) statutorily mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to an assessee before any adverse action is contemplated. The Court found its view to be in line with a previous decision rendered in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others. 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, but only after strictly following the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act. The challenge to the notifications dated 31.03.2023, 24.04.2023, 28.12.2023, and 29.12.2023 was expressly kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 29.04.2024 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 Argument: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order is invalid because no personal hearing was granted, which contravenes the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the Act. They relied on the principle that an adverse order cannot be passed without giving the affected party a chance to be heard. Revenue's Argument: The State counsel admitted that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication 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. 133 CWP-8927-2026 Date of decision : 07.05.2026 Naveen Garg
.…. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A. G., Haryana.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel, with
Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate, for UOI.
* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1)
Through the instant petition challenge is made to the adjudication order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-10). (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
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.