Ms Sanjay Kumar Govt Contractor vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by previous judgments of the 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. Based on these precedents, the Court found no reason to deviate from its prior rulings. The ratio decidendi is that the method of service as challenged by the petitioner has been addressed and decided in the cited cases. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the previous judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the aforementioned judgments.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sanjay Kumar Govt Contractor, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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) does not constitute proper service. The respondents are the Union of India and the State of Haryana. The tax period and the amount in dispute are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the case was brought directly before the High Court via a writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST 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? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that such uploading does not constitute proper service. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's contention is not explicitly recorded, but it is implied that they rely on the portal upload as valid service, given the context of the case being decided based on previous judgments. The judgment states that learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present case is no longer res integra and stands concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-29577-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.09.2026
M/S SANJAY KUMAR GOVT CONTRACTOR
....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, UOI
with Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocate &
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate
for respondent – Union of India.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for respondent - State.
***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. (Oral)
Short question that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether uploading of a notice as well as the order-in- original in the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, on the common portal, being www.gst.gov.in amounts to proper service of it, on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017?
Learned counsel for the parties a
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.