New Raju Tent House Private Limited v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CWP/18418/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC; CWP-18418-2026 (O&M); decided 15.07.2026; New Raju Tent House Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab; denial of opportunity of personal hearing before adjudication/assessment order dt. 28.09.2022; natural justice violation; Section 75(4) PGST Act 2017 mandates hearing where adverse decision contemplated; revenue conceded omission and undertook fresh orders after due hearing; petition disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd., CWP-33977-2025, decided 24.03.2026 (setting aside of analogous order with liberty to proceed afresh observing S.75(4)); bench: ACJ Ashwani Kumar Mishra & Rohit Kapoor.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra); all pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶19-20

New Raju Tent House Private Limited Vs State… — GST and Indirect Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra); all pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19-20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) was passed in violation of principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before the impugned order, notwithstanding Section 75(4) of the PGST Act, 2017.

¶10

Court's answer

The Court recorded the revenue's fair admission that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

On the basis of that admission, the revenue undertook that fresh orders would be passed in the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

Key takeaways

Section 75(4) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee.ratio¶11
The Court disposed of the present petition in terms of its Division Bench decision in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the precedent relied upon being one in which the analogous adjudication/assessment order had been set aside with liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh in accordance with law including Section 75(4).ratio¶19-20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh — CWP-18418-2026 (O&M), decided 15.07.2026; bench: Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra (oral judgment) with Rohit Kapoor, Judge. New Raju Tent House Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) as having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, in that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the order was passed, whereas Section 75(4) of the Punjab GST Act, 2017 provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against an assessee (or where requested in writing). Learned counsel for the revenue fairly admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded and that fresh orders would be passed after affording due opportunity of hearing. Relying on its Division Bench decision in Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-33977-2025, decided on 24.03.2026 — wherein an analogous adjudication/assessment order had been set aside with liberty to the revenue to proceed only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) — the Court disposed of the present petition in terms of that decision; all pending miscellaneous applications were likewise disposed of.

¶1

¶2

151 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

¶3

CWP- 1 8418-2026 (O&M) Date o f Decision: 15.07.2026

¶4

NEW RAJU T ENT HOUSE PRIVATE LIM I TED …Petitioner Vs.

¶5

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

¶7

Present: M s. Priyanka Singla, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

¶8

M r. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***

¶9

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)

¶10

O rder dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) is primarily questione d on the ground t h at the same has been passed i n violation of principles of na t ural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearin g was not afforded to the petiti o ner before passin g the order impugned.

¶11

L earned counsel for the reven u e fairly admits that opportunit y of personal hea r ing was not afforded to the p etitioner before passing the o rder impugned, a n d that fresh orders would be p assed in the matter, after affor d ing due opportun i ty of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Section 75(4) of the PGST Act , 2017, provides that an opport u nity of hearing sh a ll be granted where any advers e decision is contemplated again s t an assessee. Sec t ion 75(4) of the Act, reads as u n der:-

¶12

“ Section 75(4) in The Punjab G o ods and Services Tax Act, 2017 : ( 4)An opportunity of hearing s h all be granted where a reque s t is r eceived in writing from the pe rs on chargeable with tax or pen a lty,

¶13

RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 12:47 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶14

CWP-18418-2026 (O&M) [2]

¶15

or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.”

¶16

Similar issue also came up for adjudication before the Division

¶17

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:-

¶18

“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.

¶19