Ms Sarswati Trading Company vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sarswati Trading Company, 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 specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent arguments presented.

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 own prior decisions 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, decided on 23.07.2026. The ratio decidendi from these judgments, which the present case follows, likely pertains to the interpretation of 'proper service' under Section 169 of the GST Act when documents are uploaded to the common portal. The Court disposed of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. No specific operative directions beyond the disposal in terms of prior judgments were recorded.

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 of such documents 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 an upload does not constitute proper service. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any specific arguments but relied on existing judgments of the High Court. The parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the issue was no longer res integra (undecided) and was concluded by previous judgments.