Maa Chintpurni Trading Co vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered 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 its 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 no longer res integra and stands concluded by these prior pronouncements, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as those judgments. The reasoning is that the legal question regarding the validity of service through the GST portal has already been authoritatively decided by the High Court. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, implying that the relief granted or denied in those cases would apply here. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Chintpurni Trading Co., 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 dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the method of service of official communications. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided judgment excerpt. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this 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 GST portal amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in terms 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 or State's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but the court notes that the parties are 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue is concluded by previous judgments. The petitioner relies on the principle that proper service must be effected in accordance with the law, and mere uploading on a portal without further notification might not satisfy this requirement. The court's decision is based on its prior rulings in CWP-27139-2025 (Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others) and CWP-15601-2026 (The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others).