M/S Vaishno Rice Mills vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vaishno Rice Mills, 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 revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, was the respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed, beyond the fact that the petitioner is challenging the method of service.

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 judgment 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 ratio decidendi from these precedents would dictate that the method of service challenged by the petitioner is either valid or invalid based on the findings in those cases. As the parties were ad idem and the issue was considered concluded, the Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying that the relief granted or denied would mirror those judgments. No specific finding on the validity of service in this particular case was elaborated, as it was deemed to be governed by prior rulings.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an 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? The petitioner argued that such an upload does not constitute proper service. The revenue 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 is essential for the validity of any notice or order. The revenue, by agreeing with the petitioner, implicitly accepted that the prior judgments would govern the outcome.