M/S Konasth Solutions Private Limited vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Konasth Solutions Private Limited, 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 State of Punjab and others were the respondents. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, nor is the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own 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. These judgments, as clarified by the latter, determine the question of proper service through the GST portal. The Court disposed of the instant writ petition in the same terms as these prior judgments. The specific findings or reasoning from those judgments are not detailed in the provided text, but the ratio decidendi is that the issue is settled by precedent. No specific operative directions are mentioned beyond disposing of the petition in terms of the cited judgments.

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: Uploading documents on the GST portal does not constitute proper service under the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Revenue/State's contention: The parties are ad idem that the present case is concluded by previous judgments of this Court. No specific argument from the Revenue's side is recorded, other than their agreement with the petitioner's counsel regarding the applicability of prior judgments.