M/S Haryana State Co-Op Apex Bank LTD vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Haryana State Co-op Apex Bank Ltd., 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, specifically in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab, did not constitute proper service. The respondents were the Union Territory of Chandigarh and another authority. The core of the dispute revolved around whether this digital upload satisfied the requirements of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for effective service of statutory notices and orders.

Held

The Court held that the question raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been decided. The Court referred to its previous judgment in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, which had addressed a similar issue. This judgment was further clarified by another decision of the same Court in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. As the issue in the instant case was squarely covered by these prior pronouncements, the Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as those judgments. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgments regarding the validity of service via the GST portal were not detailed in this order, but the implication is that the prior judgments provided the resolution. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent.

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? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that such an upload does not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. They relied on the principle that statutory requirements for service must be strictly adhered to. Respondent's Contention: The respondent-UT, Chandigarh, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's disposition suggests that the respondents likely contended that the portal upload was a valid mode of service, or at least that the issue was covered by previous judgments.