Devender Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Devender Kumar, 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 were the Union of India and others, including the State of Haryana. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed and is now being disposed of based on previous judgments of the same court.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra, meaning it has already been decided. The Court referred to its previous judgments in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. These judgments, according to the Court, squarely cover the present case. Therefore, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those prior judgments. The reasoning was that the question of whether uploading documents on the GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, has been definitively addressed and settled by the High Court in the cited cases. No specific operative directions were mentioned beyond disposing of the petition in line with the precedent.

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 respondents did not present any arguments as the court found the issue to be concluded by prior judgments. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service requires actual communication or a method that ensures receipt of the notice or order. The respondents' position was not explicitly detailed in the judgment, but their implicit stance would be that the portal upload is a valid mode of service as per the Act.