Banshi Traders vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Held

The Court held that the question raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra (undecided) and stands concluded by previous judgments of this 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 that the issue is squarely covered. Therefore, 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 prior rulings, implying that the method of service, as challenged by the petitioner, was likely deemed valid or addressed by the cited judgments. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Banshi Traders, filed a writ petition 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 GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) did not constitute proper service. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the modes of service of notices and orders. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that this matter is being decided based on previous judgments of the same court.

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 view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that such an upload does not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner beyond this general contention. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents (State of Punjab and Another) did not present any specific arguments recorded in the judgment. However, the judgment notes that the parties are 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue is concluded by previous judgments of the Court.