Parmod Trading Co vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Parmod Trading Co., 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 revenue, Union of India and another (CBIC), was the respondent. The core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading these documents in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constituted proper service on the petitioner, as per Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The procedural history indicates this is a writ petition, and the court's decision relies on previous judgments.

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 decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and a 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 is that the manner of service as challenged by the petitioner has been previously adjudicated upon and settled by the High Court. Consequently, 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 prior rulings.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal 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. (Implicitly, as the court disposed of the petition based on prior judgments that likely addressed this). Respondent's Contention: The respondent (Union of India and CBIC) contended that uploading on the portal is a valid mode of service. (Implicitly, as the court's decision aligns with prior judgments that likely favored this interpretation). The parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.