The Gurditpura Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Gurditpu Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited, 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 core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading these documents on the common portal, accessible via 'View Additional Notices and Orders' on www.gst.gov.in, constituted proper service on the petitioner under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue, represented by the State and CBIC, was the respondent. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and had been concluded by previous judgments of the same Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own judgments in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union of India and Others, decided on 23.07.2026, and the further clarification in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. The Court found that the present case was squarely covered by these prior decisions. Therefore, 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 terms of the prior judgments, implying that the relief granted in those cases would apply here. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal, specifically under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' section on www.gst.gov.in, amounts to proper service of such documents on the petitioner in accordance with Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that such an upload did not constitute proper service. (The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond the issue itself). Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the upload on the common portal was a valid mode of service. (The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond the issue itself).