` 273 IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-118360-2026 (O&M) Date off Decision: 20.07.2026 Deepak Goel …Petitioner Vs. State of Punjaab and others …Respondents CORAM: HHON’BLE THE ACTING CHIIEF JUSTICE HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHHIT KAPOOR Present: MMr. Rakesh Cajla, Advocate for tthe petitioner. ((through video conferencing) MMs. Samdisha Kaur, AAG, Punjaab. *** ASHWANI KKUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Orral) 1. OOrder dated 31.12.2025 (Annex ure P/1) is primarily questionedd on the ground thhat the same has been passed iin violation of principles of nattural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearingg was not afforded to the petitiooner before passingg the order impugned. 2. LLearned counsel for the revenuue fairly admits that opportunityy of personal hearring was not afforded to the ppetitioner before passing the ordero impugned, annd that fresh orders would be ppassed in the matter, after affordding due opportuniity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2 017, provides that an opportunitty of hearing shall be granted where any adverse ddecision is contemplated againsst an assessee. Secttion 75(4) of the Act, reads as unnder:-““Section 75(4) in The Goods andd Services Tax Act, 2017: ((4)An opportunity of hearing shhall be granted where a requesst is rreceived in writing from the persrson chargeable with tax or penaalty, oor where any adverse decisioon is contemplated against suchs pperson.” RAJESH KUMAR

2026.07.22 13:48 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-18360-2026 (O&M) [2] 4. Similar issue also came up for adjudication before the Division 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:- “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. 5. In that view of the matter, the present petition also stands disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 13:48 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

` 273 IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-118360-2026 (O&M) Date off Decision: 20.07.2026 Deepak Goel …Petitioner Vs. State of Punjaab and others …Respondents CORAM: HHON’BLE THE ACTING CHIIEF JUSTICE HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHHIT KAPOOR Present: MMr. Rakesh Cajla, Advocate for tthe petitioner. ((through video conferencing) MMs. Samdisha Kaur, AAG, Punjaab. *** ASHWANI KKUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Orral) 1. OOrder dated 31.12.2025 (Annex ure P/1) is primarily questionedd on the ground thhat the same has been passed iin violation of principles of nattural justice, as an opportunity of personal hearingg was not afforded to the petitiooner before passingg the order impugned. 2. LLearned counsel for the revenuue fairly admits that opportunityy of personal hearring was not afforded to the ppetitioner before passing the ordero impugned, annd that fresh orders would be ppassed in the matter, after affordding due opportuniity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2 017, provides that an opportunitty of hearing shall be granted where any adverse ddecision is contemplated againsst an assessee. Secttion 75(4) of the Act, reads as unnder:-““Section 75(4) in The Goods andd Services Tax Act, 2017: ((4)An opportunity of hearing shhall be granted where a requesst is rreceived in writing from the persrson chargeable with tax or penaalty, oor where any adverse decisioon is contemplated against suchs pperson.” RAJESH KUMAR

2026.07.22 13:48 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-18360-2026 (O&M) [2] 4. Similar issue also came up for adjudication before the Division 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:- “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. 5. In that view of the matter, the present petition also stands disposed of in terms of Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 13:48 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.