Ms Jagdish Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court held that the question of whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, is no longer res integra. This issue has been conclusively decided by this Court in previous judgments. 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. As the present case is squarely covered by these precedents, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the cited judgments, and all pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jagdish 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 revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, was the respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the matter was brought 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 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, but the court noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was already decided by previous judgments of the same court. The court's observation suggests that the revenue's stance, as understood by the court, aligned with the petitioner's position that the matter was concluded by precedent.