Judgment
240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-35783-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17th September, 2026.
WINTECH ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.
.…...Petitioner(s) V/s
DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIVISION EAST-1, GST GURUGRAM AND OTHERS
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Junior Standing Counsel, Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, for respondents-Revenue.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
for respondent No.4.
****
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
1.
Apart from other grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the order-in-original passed by the authorities were actually never served upon the petitioner and it was merely uploaded on the GST portal.
Reliance is placed on the judgement passed by this Court in Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others to submit that the service of order would not be sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the GST portal.
2.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue has filed a reply wherein it is asserted that the Order-in-Original was also SURESH KUMAR 2026.09.18 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-35783-2025 (O&M)
Page 2 of 2
dispatched through Registered Post. A copy of the Dispatch Register has been annexed as Annexure R-2, which indicates that although the order was duly sent by post, the same was not received by the petitioner and was returned undelivered on 12.04.2024.
3.
In that view of the matter, we find that the order-in-original itself was never served. The mere fact that the petitioner had shut down its commercial activities from the disclosed address may have contributed to non-service of the order.
4.
Be that as it may, we are of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of in terms of the judgement by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra), particularly as the service of order by an alternative mode has not fructified.
5.
In view of the aforesaid and in view of the fact that the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Luxmi Traders (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.
6.
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] CHIEF JUSTICE
[ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE
September 17, 2026 Ess Kay
Whether speaking / reasoned :
Yes / No Whether Reportable
:
Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2026.09.18 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document