Ms Tarun Agro Foods vs. State Of Punjab And Anr
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Tarun Agro Foods, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the State of Punjab and another respondent. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the adjudication order was passed without affording them an opportunity of a personal hearing. The petitioner relied on a recent judgment of the High Court in CWP-33977-2025, Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, which dealt with a similar issue. The State counsel was unable to distinguish the applicability of the cited precedent to the present case.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 07.08.2024 was not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also contravened Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, because the petitioner-assessee was not afforded an opportunity of a personal hearing before its passing. The Court found that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by its recent judgment in CWP-33977-2025, Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others. Since the learned State counsel could not distinguish the applicability of this precedent, the Court followed it. Consequently, the impugned adjudication order was set aside. However, liberty was granted to the State to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated 07.08.2024 is violative of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the absence of a personal hearing for the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contravened Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. They placed reliance on the High Court's judgment in CWP-33977-2025, Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, arguing that their case was covered by this precedent. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel did not present any arguments to distinguish the applicability of the Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. case to the petitioner's case, implying no counter-argument was made against the petitioner's reliance on the precedent.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.171 CWP-14028-2026 Date of decision: 06.05.2026 M/s Tarun Agro Foods ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....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 07.08.2024, 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 attes
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.