CWP- 27316- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s Raman Auto Electricals State of Punjab CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. DEEPAK SIBAL It is not disputed that prior to passing of the impu adjudication order dated 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pertaining to the financial year 2018 the petitioner, also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, which mandates the respondent hearing to the assessee before any adverse action against the assessee. 2. In covered in its favour by a recent judgment rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in CWP-33977-2025 others’. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent distinguish the applicability of (supra) to the petitioner’s case. -2025 Sr. No.134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- 27316 Date of Decision : M/s Raman Auto Electricals … Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is not disputed that prior to passing of the impu adjudication order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pertaining to the financial year 2018-19, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act mandates the respondent-authorities to hearing to the assessee before any adverse action against the assessee. In the light of the above, the petitioner’s case would be covered in its favour by a recent judgment rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in 2025 ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Learned counsel for the respondent distinguish the applicability of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.’s (supra) to the petitioner’s case. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 27316-2025 Date of Decision :18.05.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI It is not disputed that prior to passing of the impugned (Annexure P-9) passed under Section 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pertaining to the , no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, authorities to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee before any adverse action against the assessee. above, the petitioner’s case would be covered in its favour by a recent judgment rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.’s case VANDANA 2026.05.19 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 27316- 4. In 23.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 18.06.2025 are However, liber petitioner, in accordance with law. 5. The petition is allowed in the above 18.05.2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable -2025 In view of the above, the impugned adjudication orde and the appellate order dated 18.06.2025 are However, liberty is granted to the respondents in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No impugned adjudication order dated and the appellate order dated 18.06.2025 are set aside. s to proceed afresh against the The petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.19 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document