Ms Jai Shankar Enterprises vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jai Shankar Enterprises, 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 are the State of Punjab and others. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order are not explicitly mentioned. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of this writ petition.

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 from these prior judgments, which the present case follows, likely addresses the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act concerning electronic service. As the instant petition was disposed of in the same terms as the cited judgments, the operative direction would be consistent with the relief granted in those cases, which is not detailed here but implies a resolution of the service issue. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of 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? The petitioner argued that such uploading does not constitute proper service. The revenue or State did not present any arguments as the matter was considered concluded by previous judgments. The Court noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was no longer res integra (undecided) and was covered by prior judgments of the High Court.