G V Traders v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 106 CWP-6901-2025 Date of decision : 08.05.2026 M/s G. V. Traders ..... 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. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A. G., Punjab.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Through the instant petition challenge is made to the adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-8). (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 State counsel fairly admits that prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 28.04.2024, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of personal hearing.

(4) In the light of the above, we find that the impugned adjudication order is in violation of not only the principles of natural justice but also Section 75(4) of the Act which statutorily mandates the State to SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.05.12 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-6901-2025 [ 2 ] afford an opportunity of personal hearing to an assessee before any adverse action under the Act is contemplated.

(5) The afore view of ours is also in line with a decision recently rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in CWP No.33977 of 2025 - Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, the applicability of which to the petitioner's case has not been distinguished by the learned State counsel.

(6) In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to direct setting aside of the impugned adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-8). However, liberty is granted to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner but only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the Act.

(7) The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(8) No costs.

[DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE 08.05.2026 [LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.05.12 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh