Ahuja Enterprises INDIA vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Ahuja Enterprises (India), 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 tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ does not constitute proper service. The State of Punjab and another were the respondents. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the filing of the writ petition is not detailed, other than the challenge to the method of service.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and stands concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and a subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. The reasoning is that the method of service challenged by the petitioner has already been addressed and decided by the Court in these prior cases. Therefore, 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 previous rulings, and all pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ 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 does not constitute proper service. The revenue or State did not present any arguments as the parties were ad idem that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service must be in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act. The revenue or State did not cite any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents in their defense, as they agreed with the petitioner's stance based on prior judicial pronouncements.