M/s Vishal Investments v. State of Punjab

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Mr. Gurkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Pandher, Additional A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.S.Pandher, Additional A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.S.Pandher, Additional A.G., Punjab. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) DEEPAK SIBAL petition is directed against the adjudication order dated This petition is directed against the adjudication order dated This 5) on the ground that prior to the passing of the 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that prior to the passing of the 28.08.2024 (Annexure P said order, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner said order, no opportunity of personal hearing was said order, no opportunity of personal hearing was which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also contravenes which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also contravenes which not only violates the principles of natural justice but also contravenes Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short- Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act The Act). Under challenge is also the order of the Appellate Authority dated The Act). Under challenge is also the order of the Appellate Authority dated The Act). Under challenge is also the order of the Appellate Authority dated

11.07.2025 (Annexure P 25 (Annexure P-12).

2. Learned State counsel fairly admits Lea rned State counsel fairly admits that prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, no opportunity of the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, no opportunity of the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

3. In light of the above, the petitioner’s case w In 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 CWP- its favour by a recent judgment rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in its favour by a recent judgment rendered by us on 24.03.2026 in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and 33977-2025 ‘Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others’ wherein we wherein we have held as follows:- VANDANA 2026.05.01 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

8. 8. for doubt for doubt for doubt A perusal of the afore quoted provision leaves no room A perusal of the afore quoted provision leaves no room is even is even is even that before any adverse decision that before any adverse decision that before any adverse decision CWP- 12074- -2026 (O&M) contemplated against an assessee under the 2017 Act, the contemplated against an assessee under the 2017 Act, the contemplated against an assessee under the 2017 Act, the respondent-revenue is under a statutory obligation to provide revenue is under a statutory obligation to provide respondent to the assessee an opportunity of hearing which, admittedly, in to the assessee an opportunity of hearing which, admittedly, in the case in hand, has not been done. the case in hand, has not been done. the case in hand, has not been done. 9. The submission raised by the learned State counsel that The submission raised by the learned State counsel that 9. since to the show cause notice or the reminder, the petitioner since to the show cause notice or the reminder, the petitioner since to the show cause notice or the reminder, the petitioner did not file a written response, no opportunity of hearing was did not file a written response, no opportunity of hearing wa did not file a written response, no opportunity of hearing wa required to be granted to the petitioner is required to be required to be granted to the petitioner is required to be required to be granted to the petitioner is required to be considered only to be rejected because under Section 75(4) of considered only to be rejected because under Section 75(4) of considered only to be rejected because under Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act, an assessee is statutorily entitled to be granted the 2017 Act, an assessee is statutorily entitled to be granted the 2017 Act, an assessee is statutorily entitled to be granted an opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision is even an opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision is even an opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision is even contemp lated against him. Further, in the absence of a written contemplated against him. Further, in the absence of a written response, if the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of response, if the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of response, if the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of hearing, it could, at the time of such hearing, produce its hearing, it could, at the time of such hearing, produce its hearing, it could, at the time of such hearing, produce its original record in the form of account books, ledgers etc. original record in the form of account books, ledgers etc. original record in the form of account books, ledgers etc. n arguments in defence and make an attempt and/or file written arguments in defence and make an attempt and/or file writte to satisfy the Assessing Officer to withdraw the show cause to satisfy the Assessing Officer to withdraw the show cause to satisfy the Assessing Officer to withdraw the show cause notice served upon him. notice served upon him. In the light of the above discussion, the present petition In the light of the above discussion, the present petition 10. 10. is accepted, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned is accepted, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned is accepted, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned dication/assessment order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P- adjudication/assessment order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P 1). However, liberty is granted to the respondent 1). However, liberty is granted to the respondent-revenue to 1). However, liberty is granted to the respondent proceed against the petitioner but only after following the proceed against the petitioner but only after following the proceed against the petitioner but only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act.” provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the 2017 Ac provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the 2017 Ac

4. afore discussion, the present petition is allowed In light of the afore discussion, the present petition is allowed In resulting in the setting aside of the impugned order dated 2 resulting in the setting asi de of the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-5). T 5). The order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P he order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure P-12) dismissing appeal to challenge therein adjudication order dated he petitioner’s appeal to challenge therein adjudication order dated the petitioner’s also set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents 28.08.2024 is also set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents 28.08.2024 is to proceed afresh in accordance with law. afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE , 2026 April 22, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : ther speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2026.05.01 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document