Friday Russh Motion Pictures vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Revenue Secretary
Facts
The petitioner, Friday Russh Motion Pictures, challenged an adjudication order dated 30.08.2024 and a subsequent appellate order dated 28.08.2025 that dismissed its appeal. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was invalid because it was issued without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent-CBIC, representing the Union of India, fairly admitted that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the adjudication order.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 30.08.2024 was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the order violated not only the principles of natural justice but also Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which statutorily mandates offering an opportunity of personal hearing to an assessee before any adverse action is contemplated. This view was supported by a previous decision of the Court in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others. Consequently, the Court set aside both the adjudication order and the appellate order. The respondent-State was granted liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner, but only after strictly following the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Act. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 30.08.2024 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 the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order is liable to be set aside solely because no opportunity of personal hearing was provided prior to its issuance, which contravenes both the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate of Section 75(4) of the Act. Respondent's contention: The respondent-CBIC fairly admitted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing before the adjudication order was passed.
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. 155 )
CWP No. 11901 of 2026
Date of decision: 21.04.2026
Friday Russh Motion Pictures .....Petitioner
Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Geetika Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel – CBIC
for respondent(s)-UOI.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1)
Through the instant petition challenge is made to the adjudication order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) as also to the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the appellate authority through which the petitioner’s appeal filed by it to challenge therein the adjudication order dated 30.08.2024, was dismissed. (2)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned adjudication order dated 30.08.2024 is liable to be set aside solely because prior to its issuance, no opportunity of personal hearing was even offered to the petitioner which not only violates the principles of natural jus
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.