Ms Vishal Investment vs. State Of Punjab Through Its Secretary And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vishal Investments, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) and an order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-12). The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab, admitted that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to the passing of the adjudication order. The petitioner's case was stated to be covered by a recent judgment of the High Court in CWP-33977-2025, M/s Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others.

Held

The Court held that the adjudication order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) is set aside because it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted before any adverse decision is taken against an assessee. The revenue's contention that no hearing was required due to the absence of a written response was rejected. The Court also set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-12) which dismissed the petitioner's appeal. However, liberty was granted to the respondent-revenue to proceed against the petitioner afresh, but only after strictly following the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act, and providing an opportunity of hearing. The Court found that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by its earlier decision in CWP-33977-2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, contravenes the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed in violation of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Act, as no personal hearing was granted. They relied on the judgment in CWP-33977-2025, M/s Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, which held that an opportunity of hearing must be provided before any adverse decision is taken. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through the learned State counsel, fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the adjudication order was passed. They also submitted that since the petitioner did not file a written response to the show cause notice, no opportunity of hearing was required. However, the Court considered this submission to be rejected.