Ms R Sales Corporation vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s R Sales Corporation, challenged an adjudication order dated 07.01.2020 and a subsequent appellate order dated 11.08.2025. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents are the State of Punjab and others. The dispute arose from a show cause notice dated 01.08.2019, which preceded the adjudication order. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned orders.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 07.01.2020 and the appellate order dated 11.08.2025 were liable to be set aside. The Court found that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing prior to the issuance of the adjudication order, which contravened the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court relied on its own recent judgment in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, which dealt with a similar issue of denial of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudication order passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondent-State to proceed afresh from the stage of the show cause notice dated 01.08.2019, in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 07.01.2020, passed by the revenue authority, is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the absence of an opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner prior to its issuance? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as no opportunity of hearing was provided before its issuance. They relied on a recent judgment of the High Court in CWP No.33977 of 2025 – Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State.
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. 147 )
CWP No. 11056 of 2026
Date of decision: 10.04.2026
M/s R Sales Corporation .....Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Addl. A. G., Punjab.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1)
Through the instant petition challenge is made to the adjudication order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) as also order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the appellate authority on the ground that prior to issuance of the adjudication order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure P-2), no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner which not only violates of principles of natural justice but also Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (2)
It is not denied that prior to the issuance of the impugned adjudication order dated 07.01.2020, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing. That being so, the case of th
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.