Ms Blue Sky Exports Private Limited vs. The Excise And Taxation Officer And Another

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own 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, decided on 23.07.2026. The ratio decidendi of these judgments, as applied here, is that uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal in the designated tab does not constitute proper service under Section 169 of the GST Act, 2017, unless specific conditions for deemed service are met and properly communicated. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. No specific operative directions like remand or deletion were mentioned, but the implication is that the service was deemed improper, requiring proper service to be effected.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Blue Sky Exports Private Limited, 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 in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) did not constitute proper service. The Excise and Taxation Officer and another were the respondents. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of 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 view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that such uploading does not constitute proper service. The respondents did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, but 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 previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is essential for due process. The respondents, by agreeing with the petitioner's counsel, implicitly accepted the applicability of the cited precedents.