Ms Mohindra Gas Enterprises vs. State Of Haryana And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mohindra Gas Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging an adjudication order dated 27.02.2025. The State of Haryana and others were the respondents. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them prior to the passing of this impugned order. The parties agreed that the petitioner's case was covered by a recent judgment of the High Court dated 24.03.2026 in CWP-33977-2025, titled Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, which dealt with a similar issue of denial of hearing.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) was liable to be set aside because no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to its passing. The Court relied on its own recent judgment in CWP-33977-2025 (Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others) which dealt with a similar issue. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order passed without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned adjudication order. However, liberty was granted to the respondent-revenue to proceed afresh against the petitioner, but only after strictly following the provisions of law, including Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 27.02.2025 is liable to be set aside on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the denial of a hearing before passing the adjudication order rendered it invalid. They contended that this violated their fundamental right to be heard and was contrary to established legal principles. The revenue's argument was not recorded in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not contest the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of opportunity of hearing.
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. 123 CWP-11284-2026 Date of decision : 17.04.2026 M/s Mohindra Gas Enterprises
.…. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Y. K. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana. * * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the parties agree that because prior to passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner’s case would be covered in its favour by a recent judgment of ours dated 24.03.2026 passed in CWP-33977-2025-Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others.
In the light of the above, the instant petition is allowed in terms of the Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra), resulting in the setting aside of the impugned adjudication order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-6). However, liberty is granted to the
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.