Ms Manmeet Reg vs. The State Of Punjab

Held

The High Court held that the question raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra (undecided) and had been concluded by previous judgments of the same Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its judgment in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, which was further clarified by another judgment in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. The Court found that the issue in the present case was squarely covered by these prior decisions. Consequently, the 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 Court's prior rulings on the validity of service via the GST portal would apply. No specific amount was directed to be deleted or refunded, nor was any specific notice or order set aside in this judgment itself, as it followed prior pronouncements.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S MANMEET REG., through its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged 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 respondents were the State of Punjab and others. The tax period and the specific authority issuing the notice and order were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, nor was the amount in dispute.

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 such documents 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 did not constitute proper service. The revenue or State did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, but it was noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was concluded by previous judgments. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is essential for the validity of any notice or order. The revenue's position, implied by the agreement, was that the existing judgments correctly addressed the issue of service via the GST portal.