Ms Burn Gym And Spa Private Limited9988777666 vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Burn Gym & Spa Pvt. Ltd., 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) did not constitute proper service. The respondents included the State of Punjab and others. The tax period(s) and the specific authority that passed the order-in-original are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the matter was brought before the High Court via a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered 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 was that these prior judgments had already addressed and decided the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constituted proper service under the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those previous judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the established precedents. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and the specific tax periods were not recorded.

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 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 uploading does not constitute proper service. The revenue or State did not present separate arguments, as the parties were ad idem that the issue was already decided by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is a prerequisite for any adverse action. The revenue's position, as indicated by being 'ad idem', was that the prior judgments governed the present case.