Vikas Goyal So Late Sh Ram Avtar Goyal vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Vikas Goyal, challenged an adjudication order dated 30.03.2026, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2019-20. The order confirmed a demand of Rs. 31,29,061.16. The petitioner argued that both the show cause notice dated 12.09.2025 and the impugned adjudication order were issued in the name of Sh. Ram Avtar Goyal, who had passed away on 14.05.2021. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the same court in CWP-8442-2026 (Sunil Jain vs. State of Punjab and others). The State counsel conceded that the present case would be covered in favour of the petitioner by the Sunil Jain judgment.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 30.03.2026 was unsustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that both the show cause notice and the adjudication order were issued in the name of Sh. Ram Avtar Goyal, who had expired on 14.05.2021. The Court found that this situation was squarely covered by its recent judgment in CWP-8442-2026 (Sunil Jain vs. State of Punjab and others). Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. However, the Court granted liberty to the State to proceed afresh against the legal representatives of the deceased-assessee, in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether an adjudication order and the preceding show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, are legally sustainable when they are in the name of a deceased individual, pertaining to the financial year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order and show cause notice were invalid as they were issued in the name of Sh. Ram Avtar Goyal, who had died prior to the issuance of these documents. The petitioner relied on the judgment in CWP-8442-2026 (Sunil Jain vs. State of Punjab and others) to support this argument. The revenue (State of Haryana) conceded that the petitioner's case would be covered in their favour by the aforementioned judgment in Sunil Jain's case.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-14168-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.156 CWP-14168-2026 Date of decision: 07.05.2026 Vikas Goyal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
The present petition is directed against the impugned adjudication order dated 30.03.2026, passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pertaining to the financial year 2019-20, confirming a demand of Rs.31,29,061.16/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law because such order dated 30.03.2026 and even the show cause notice dated 12.09.2025, which preceded it have been issued in the name of Sh. Ram Avtar Goyal who unfortunately expired on 14.05.2021. 3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a recent judgment rendered by us on 22.04.2026 in CWP-8442- JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.12 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and
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.