Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13902 (PNJ)

MS DIAMOND STEEL INDUSTRIES v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CWP/9991/2026 · 2026-04-06

Deepak Sibal, Lapita Banerji

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s Diamond Steel Industries State of Punjab CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab. DEEPAK SIBAL It is not disputed before us that through the adjudication order dated 27.01.2026 under Section 74 Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 demand was not precede 2. In the light of the above, the impugned demand dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P the respondent accordance with law. April 06, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Sr. No.159 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9991 of 2026 Date of Decision: M/s Diamond Steel Industries Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is not disputed before us that through the adjudication order dated 27.01.2026, a demand has been made from the petitioner under Section 74-A (1) read with Section 74A Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act, 2017’) not preceded by any notice whatsoever. In the light of the above, the impugned demand dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent-State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in ance with law. (DEEPAK JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 9991 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab. It is not disputed before us that through the adjudication a demand has been made from the petitioner read with Section 74A (5)(i) of the Central (for short ‘CGST Act, 2017’) which by any notice whatsoever. In the light of the above, the impugned demand dated 1) is set aside. However, liberty is granted to State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2026.04.10 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document