MS DIAMOND STEEL INDUSTRIES v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
CWP/9991/2026 · 2026-04-06
Deepak Sibal, Lapita Banerji
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13902 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13902 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
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