Allowed¶19

M/S Vishal Jewellers v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2026CWP/6678/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vishal Jewellers v. State of Punjab, CWP-6678-2026 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 08.07.2026 (A.C.J. Ashwani Kumar Mishra; Rohit Kapoor J.) – Writ petition against Section 73 Punjab GST Act adjudication allowed; SCN reply dismissed as 'not satisfactory' without reasons held invalid; impugned orders set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration, following CWP No.16293 of 2024. Keywords: GST, Section 73 PGST Act, Show Cause Notice, reasoned order, quasi-judicial function, remand.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside and matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. ¶19

M/S Vishal Jewellers Vs State of Punjab and… — GST and Indirect Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP-6678-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.07.2026

¶4

M/S VISHAL JEWELLERS ....PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

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

¶8

Present: Mr. Gurkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl., AG, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

This petition is directed against an order passed under Section 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding the petitioner liable to payment of GST after observing that the petitioner's explanation to the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) was not found satisfactory. The order is challenged on the ground that adequate reasons have not been assigned for the non-acceptance of the petitioner's explanation to the SCN and, therefore, the reasons, which are the soul of the order, are missing. It is, therefore, submitted that in such circumstances, the authority concerned be directed to consider the petitioner's response to the SCN, on merits, and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶13

The matter was adjourned on 06.07.2026 by us in order to enable the learned State counsel to obtain instructions. Learned State counsel has obtained instructions, and it could not be shown that the

¶14

RAHUL JOSHI 2026.07.09 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

¶15

CWP-6678-2026 (O&M)

¶16

¶17

petitioner's response to the SCN was accorded any consideration. Merely stating that the written explanation is not satisfactory would not suffice. An adjudicating authority, while exercising a quasi-judicial function, is expected to deal with the specific issues urged before it, and merely stating that the explanation is not satisfactory cannot subserve the purpose of a valid adjudication.

¶18

In somewhat similar facts and circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in CWP No.16293 of 2024 decided on 25.05.2026, also set aside the adjudication order and remitted the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration.

¶19

Following the order passed in CWP No.16293 of 2024, as well as for the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned orders are set aside, and the matter stands remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of cause in accordance with law.

¶20