Ms Randhawa Building Material vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Randhawa Building Material, 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 tax period and the specific authority that passed the order are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of this writ petition, which is stated to be covered by previous 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 decided the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been definitively settled by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should follow the established precedent. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments.

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? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that such uploading does not constitute proper service. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel, the Additional Advocate General of Punjab, did not explicitly argue their case but agreed that the issue was concluded by previous judgments. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue beyond this consensus.