Vinod Trading Company vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Vinod Trading Company, challenged an adjudication order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the State of Haryana 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 fairly admitted that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 26.04.2024 was in violation of 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 offered to an assessee before any adverse action is contemplated. The Court found this view to be in line with its recent decision 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 adhering to the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act. The challenge to notifications dated 31.03.2023 and 28.12.2023 was expressly kept open for decision in an appropriate future case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 26.04.2024 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 an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order is invalid as it was passed without providing a personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under the principles of natural justice and specifically mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act. This procedural lapse renders the order liable for annulment. Revenue's contention: The State counsel conceded that no opportunity of 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. 113 CWP-39085-2025 Date of decision : 23.04.2026 Vinod Trading Company
.…. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner (appeared through video conferencing).
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A. G., Haryana.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 5. * * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1)
Through the instant petition challenge is made to the adjudication order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P-3). (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 Stat
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.