Pehlad Traders Through Its Sole Proprietor Naveen Kumar vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Pehlad Trader, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of service of notices and orders. The core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice and order-in-original on the common portal, specifically under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' section of www.gst.gov.in, constituted proper service on the petitioner, in light of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that this method of service was not in compliance with the law. The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and others, likely argued for the validity of the service. The case was heard alongside other similar matters.

Held

The High Court held that the present case is squarely covered by previous judgments of the same court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. These judgments have already concluded the issue regarding the validity of service through the GST portal. Therefore, the court found no reason to deviate from its prior pronouncements. The reasoning implies that the court has previously determined that such service, when done in accordance with the stipulated procedures on the portal, is considered proper service. The operative direction was to dispose of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a notice and order-in-original on the common portal, under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' section of www.gst.gov.in, amounts to proper service on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the method of service, by merely uploading documents on the GST portal without ensuring actual receipt or knowledge by the petitioner, does not constitute proper service as mandated by the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. They likely relied on principles of natural justice and the requirement for effective communication of official actions. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and others, contended that the uploading of notices and orders on the official GST portal is a valid mode of service as prescribed by the law. They likely relied on the specific wording of Section 169 and potentially previous judicial pronouncements that have interpreted this section.