Ms Kranti International vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court held that the question raised in the writ petition was no longer res integra and had been concluded by previous judgments of the 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, decided on 23.07.2026. The ratio decidendi is that the method of service as challenged by the petitioner has been addressed and decided in these prior judgments. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying that the relief granted in those cases would apply here. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kranti International, 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 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The dispute concerns the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the method of service of official communications. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and another respondent, was involved in this matter. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in terms 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 as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. The revenue did not present any specific arguments, as the parties were stated to be ad idem that the issue was already decided by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service must be effected in a manner that ensures actual notice to the assessee. The revenue did not cite any specific authorities or precedents, as the matter was considered concluded by prior judicial pronouncements.