Pinnacle Knitwear vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and a subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. The ratio decidendi is that the method of service described by the petitioner has been addressed and decided in these prior pronouncements. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. No specific operative directions were detailed in the provided text, but the implication is that the relief granted in the prior cases would apply here. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pinnacle Knitwear, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The petitioner contended that uploading these documents on the common GST portal under the tab 'View Additional Notices and Orders' did not constitute proper service. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, was the respondent. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this is a writ petition filed directly before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in light of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that such an upload does not constitute proper service. The revenue did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, but the court's disposition suggests they relied on previous judgments. The court noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was no longer res integra (undecided) and had been concluded by prior judgments of the same court.