CWP- 16690- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Saira International 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 adjudication order dated personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, principles of natural justice but also Central Goods and Services Tax Act authorities to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee before any adverse action 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. -2026 Sr. No.119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- 16690 Date of Decision : Saira International … Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is not disputed that before adjudication order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, principles of natural justice but also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which authorities to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee before any adverse action is taken 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. p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 16690-2026 Date of Decision :26.05.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI before passing of the impugned (Annexure P-2), no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, which not only violates the contravenes Section 75(4) of the , which mandates the respondent- authorities to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee before any the petitioner’s case would be covered in its favour by a recent judgment rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in Kemexel 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 2026.05.27 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 16690- 4. In 06.10.2023 (Annexure P (Annexure P-3 to proceed afresh 5. The petition is allowed in the above terms. 26.05.2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable -2026 In view of the above, the impugned adjudication orde (Annexure P-2) and the appellate order dated 3) are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No p. 2 view of the above, the impugned adjudication order dated and the appellate order dated 07.08.2025 ty is granted to the respondents in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.27 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document