Neveen Goel vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court held that the question of whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal constitutes proper service, in light of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is no longer res integra. The Court found that this issue stands concluded by its previous judgment in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, which was further clarified in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. The reasoning was that the present case was squarely covered by these prior decisions. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the earlier judgments. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Naveen Goel, 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) does not constitute proper service. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order-in-original are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the filing of this writ petition, which the Court notes is covered by previous judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal amounts to proper service 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 arguments, as the parties were ad idem that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service must be established, and mere uploading on a portal may not satisfy this requirement. The revenue's position, as indicated by the court, was that the matter was already decided.