Amit Auto Agency vs. State Of Punjab And Other

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Amit Auto Agency, 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, represented by the State of Punjab and others, 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 constituted proper service on the petitioner. The tax period and the specific amounts in dispute were not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. The procedural history indicates this is a writ petition filed directly before the High Court.

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. These prior judgments, according to the Court, had already determined the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those prior judgments. The specific findings and reasoning from Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. regarding the interpretation of Section 169 and Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, were not reiterated but were the basis for the decision. 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 of the same 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 uploading documents on the portal does not constitute proper service. (Implicitly, as the Court disposed of the petition based on prior judgments). Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that such uploading, as per the common portal's functionality, constitutes proper service. (Implicitly, as the Court disposed of the petition based on prior judgments). The parties were ad idem that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.