M/S Aggarwal Plywood Industries 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 own judgment 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 manner of service as challenged by the petitioner has been addressed and settled by 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, but the implication is that the petitioner's challenge would be decided in line with the precedents.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Aggarwal Plywood Industries, 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 State of Punjab and others were the respondents. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed before the High Court.

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 of the same 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 revenue or State did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, but the judgment notes that learned counsel for the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is essential for the validity of any notice or order. The revenue's position, as indicated by the court, was that the issue was settled by precedent.