Doaba Pipe Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Doaba Pipe 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 under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, was the respondent. The tax period is not specified. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the method of service of official communications.

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 the subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. The ratio decidendi from these prior judgments, which were not detailed in the present order but were acknowledged as binding, would govern the present case. The Court disposed of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying that the relief granted or denied in the earlier cases would be applied here. The specific findings on the interpretation of Section 169 and Section 146, or the amount in dispute, were not elaborated upon as the matter was decided based on prior pronouncements.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading 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 an upload does not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. The revenue did not present any specific arguments, but the Court noted that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the issue was no longer res integra (undecided) and had been concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. The Court referred to its own prior 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.