M/S Duhan Electrical Works Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Duhan Electrical Works Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the validity of service of an order-in-original. The petitioner contended that uploading a notice on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' section, does not constitute proper service on the petitioner. The petition was filed in the context of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and others, was the respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this case was brought before the High Court as a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in this writ petition was no longer res integra (undecided) and had been concluded by previous judgments of the same Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own judgments in CWP-39-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and the further clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. The Court found that the instant writ petition was squarely covered by the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders and Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as those previous judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying that the issue of proper service was decided in favour of the petitioner based on those prior rulings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a notice on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' section, 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 an upload does not constitute proper service. The revenue's contentions were not explicitly detailed, but the court noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the present case was covered by previous judgments. The petitioner relied on the principle that service must be effective and actual notice must be conveyed. The revenue, while not presenting detailed arguments, implicitly relied on the statutory provisions for service as interpreted in prior judicial pronouncements.