Manocha Motors vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Manocha Motors, 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, specifically in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab, did not constitute proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute pertains to the procedural aspect of how statutory notices and orders are deemed to have been served upon taxpayers.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the same 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. Based on these precedents, the Court found that the matter was no longer res integra. The ratio decidendi is that the interpretation of 'proper service' under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, as established in the cited judgments, applies to this case. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as the aforementioned judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service of the same 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 such uploading does not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Respondents' Contention: The respondents (State of Haryana and others) did not present any specific arguments in the judgment, but the court noted that the parties were ad idem that the issue was concluded by previous judgments. The court implicitly accepted the respondents' position as reflected in the prior judgments.