Satish Jindal vs. State Of Punjab And Ors
Held
The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, decided on 15.06.2026. This decision was further clarified by the High Court in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 23.07.2026. The Court found that the facts and legal questions in the instant case are identical to those addressed in the aforementioned precedents. Therefore, the Court disposed of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the Luxmi Traders and Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the prior rulings.
Facts
The petitioner, Satish Jindal and others, challenged the validity of an order-in-original issued by the State of Punjab. The core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice and order in the 'View Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constituted proper service on the petitioner, as per Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The procedural history indicates that this matter was brought before the High Court via a writ petition. The parties were in agreement that the case's outcome depended on previous judgments of the same court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of a notice and order in the 'View 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? The petitioner argued that such an upload constitutes proper service. The revenue (State of Punjab) also contended that this method of service is valid. Both parties agreed that the present case is integrally linked to and stands concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
` 271
I
Satish Jindal State of Punja
CORAM: H
H
Present: M M M
ASHWANI K 1. to whether up Additional N amounts to pr Section 146 o
L no longer res CWP-27139-2 Others. The 15601-2026, T Others, decid
A rendered by th IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIG
CWP-2 HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROH Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, *** KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JU 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 said judgment has been furthe The Amar Cooperative LC So ded on 23.07.2026. As the issue raised in this case is his Court in Luxmi Traders (sup NJAB AND HARYANA GARH
22955-2025 (O&M) f Decision: 08.09.2026
…Petitioner
…Responden ICE HIT KAPOOR
e for the petitioner. Punjab. USTICE (Oral) nsideration in this writ petition i he order-in-original in the tab ‘V mmon portal, being www.gst.go ner in
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.