Seehra Auto Industries vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, SEEHRA AUTO INDUSTRIES, 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. The respondents were the Union of India and others, representing the revenue. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed and is now being disposed of based on prior judgments of the same High Court.

Held

The Court held that the question of whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, is no longer res integra. The Court noted that this issue has been concluded by its previous judgments in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and further clarified in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. As the present case is squarely covered by these prior decisions, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those judgments. The specific terms of the disposal, which would have detailed the operative directions based on the Luxmi Traders and Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. judgments, were not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the implication is that relief was granted consistent with those precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 electronic uploading does not constitute proper service as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the GST Act. The respondents, the Union of India and others, did not present any separate arguments as the judgment states that the parties are 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue is no longer res integra and is concluded by previous judgments of the Court. Therefore, no specific arguments were recorded for the revenue on this point, other than their agreement with the petitioner's premise that the matter is concluded by precedent.