Charu Bhalla vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Charu Bhalla, 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 on the common GST portal under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, was the respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed and is now being disposed of based on previous judgments of the same court.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra (undecided) and stood concluded by the judgment of the High Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. This judgment was further clarified by the Court in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. 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 line with the prior rulings. No specific finding on the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, was detailed, as the matter was decided based on precedent. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice as well as the order-in-original in the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in amounts to proper service of it, 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 uploading documents on the GST portal does not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, as the parties were stated to be 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was already decided by previous judgments of the Court.