M/S Garg Steel vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Garg Steel, 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 Haryana and others, was the respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed, other than the filing of the petition itself.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been decided. The Court referred to its previous judgments 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. These judgments, particularly the latter which clarified the former, directly addressed the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service. The Court found that the present case was squarely covered by these prior decisions. Therefore, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the previous rulings, implying that the petitioner's challenge was likely dismissed or decided against them based on the precedent. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in light 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. (No specific authorities or precedents are mentioned for the petitioner's argument in the provided text.) Revenue's Contention: The revenue's argument is not explicitly recorded in the provided text. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue likely contended that such uploading *does* constitute proper service, aligning with the precedents cited.