Ms Jai Shiv Bhole Traders vs. State Of Punjab And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jai Shiv Bhole Traders, challenged an adjudication order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the State of Punjab and others. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing. The State counsel did not dispute this fact and was unable to distinguish the applicability of a previous judgment of the High Court in a similar case, CWP-33977-2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 24.03.2026. The impugned order was passed by the revenue authorities.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 27.04.2024 was not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, because the petitioner-assessee was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing before its passing. The Court found that the petitioner's case was covered in their favour by the recent judgment in CWP-33977-2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others. The learned State counsel could not distinguish the applicability of this precedent to the petitioner's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned adjudication order. Liberty was granted to the State to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order passed without providing a personal hearing to the assessee violates principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, rendering it liable to be set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the State of Punjab and others, is violative of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, for not affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing? The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed without providing a personal hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also relied on the judgment in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others. The revenue (State of Punjab and others) argued that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law. However, they were unable to distinguish the applicability of the precedent case cited by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.162 CWP-13985-2026 Date of decision: 06.05.2026 M/s Jai Shiv Bhole Traders ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate Mr. Anshul Garg, Advocate and Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
It is not disputed that before passing the impugned adjudication order dated 27.04.2024, the petitioner-assessee was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing. That being so, the impugned adjudication order is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017. 2. In the above facts, the case of the petitioner is also covered in its favour by a recent judgment of this Court 24.03.2026 passed in CWP- 33977-2025 – petitioner’s case. JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.08 09:30 I
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.