Ms Creative Impex vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax Ludhiana 2 Ludhiana Punjab
Held
The Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decision in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and a subsequent clarification in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd v. State of Haryana and Others. These judgments, by implication, established the principle that uploading notices and orders on the GST common portal, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, constitutes proper service. Therefore, the Court found no reason to deviate from its prior pronouncements. The Court did not decide any new legal questions but applied existing precedents to the present case. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in the same terms as the cited judgments.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Creative Impex, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of service of an order-in-original. The petitioner contended that the order was not properly served on them through the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, under Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent was the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Ludhiana. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text. The procedural history involves the respondent filing a reply, which was taken on record by the court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of a notice and order-in-original in the tab ‘View Notices and Orders’ on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, constitutes 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 amount to proper service. While the specific legal provisions or precedents relied upon by the petitioner are not detailed, the framing of the issue implies a challenge to the sufficiency of electronic service under the GST Act. Revenue's contention: The respondent (revenue) did not explicitly present separate arguments in the provided text. However, the court's decision indicates that the revenue's position was aligned with the existing judgments of the court.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
`
34
M/s Creative Assistant Com
CORAM: H
H
Present: M
M
ASHWANI K CM-11701-C
P the responden
F allowed. Repl CWP-13690- 1. to whether up Additional N amounts to pr Section 146 o
L no longer res CWP-27139-2 IN THE HIGH COURT O AT CHANDIG
CWP-1 HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROH Mr. Sholab Arora, Advocate for t Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG,
*** KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. (Oral) CWP-2025 Prayer in the application is for p nt.
For the reasons as are mention ly filed on behalf of the responde -2025 (O&M) Short question that requires con ploading of a notice as well as th otices and Orders’, on the com roper service of it, on the petition of the Goods and Services Tax A Learned counsel for the parties s integra and stands concluded 2025, Luxmi Traders v. Unio OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GARH
13690-2025 (O&M) f Decision: 09.09.2026
…Petitioner a …Respondent ICE HIT KAPOOR the petitioner. Punjab. ) placing on record reply on behal ned in the application, the sam ent is taken on record. nsideration in this writ petition i he order-in-original i
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.