` 164 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Deson Exports State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Uma Bharti, Advocate and Ms. Mamta Bharti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the writ petition raises various issues, he confines the challenge only to the order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P/3) primarily on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. 2. Learned couns personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. Section 75(4) of the Act, reads as under: “Section 75(4) in The Goods and Services Tax Act, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22534 Date of Decision: Deson Exports Vs. State of Punjab and others HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Uma Bharti, Advocate and Ms. Mamta Bharti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the writ petition raises various issues, he confines the challenge only to the order 20.08.2024 (Annexure P/3) primarily on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly admits that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. Section 75(4) of the Act, reads as under: “Section 75(4) in The Goods and Services Tax Act, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 22534-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Mamta Bharti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab (Oral) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the writ petition raises various issues, he confines the challenge only to the order 20.08.2024 (Annexure P/3) primarily on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. el for the revenue fairly admits that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee. Section 75(4) of the Act, reads as under:- “Section 75(4) in The Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the writ petition raises various issues, he confines the challenge only to the order 20.08.2024 (Annexure P/3) primarily on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. el for the revenue fairly admits that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, and that fresh orders would be passed in the matter, after affording Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22534-2026 (O&M) [2] (4)An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.” 4. Similar issue also came up for adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-33977-2025, decided on 24.03.2026, wherein, the Division Bench held as under:- “10. In the light of the above discussion, the present petition is accepted, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned adjudication/assessment order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). However, liberty is granted to the respondent-revenue to proceed against the petitioner but only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act. 5. In that view of the matter, the present petition also stands disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.