Shri B B Metal Manufacturing vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Shri B B Metal Manufacturing, 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 under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ did 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 were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed and is now being disposed of based on prior judgments of the same court.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decisions 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. The reasoning was that these prior judgments had already addressed and concluded the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017. The ratio decidendi is that the established precedent on the interpretation of Section 169 regarding service via the GST portal is binding. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. No specific operative directions were detailed, but the implication is that the petitioner's challenge would be decided in line with the 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 the same 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 did not present any specific arguments in this judgment, as the parties were stated to be ad idem that the issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded 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 the court, was that the matter was covered by precedent.