Singla And Company vs. State Of Punjab And Another

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 amounts to proper service, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has been conclusively decided by this Court. The Court referred to its previous judgments 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, decided on 23.07.2026. As the present case was squarely covered by these prior decisions, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those judgments. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgments were not elaborated upon in this order, but the ratio is that the issue of service via the GST portal, as per the cited sections, is settled by precedent. No specific operative directions were detailed beyond disposing of the petition in line with previous judgments.

Facts

The petitioner, Singla and Company, 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 revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and another respondent, did not present arguments as the matter was considered concluded by previous High Court judgments. The tax period and the specific amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involved the filing of this writ petition after the issuance of the notice and order-in-original.

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 (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in light 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 constitute proper service. However, the specific legal provisions or precedents relied upon by the petitioner were not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any arguments. The judgment stated that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was no longer res integra (undecided) and had been concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.