Ritesh And Company vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Ritesh and Company, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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 (www.gst.gov.in) under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, was the respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its 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 cases, which the present case follows, is that uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal under the specified tab does not amount to proper service. Therefore, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying relief for the petitioner based on the established legal position regarding service of notices and orders.

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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that such an upload does not constitute proper service. Revenue's Argument: The revenue did not present any argument, as the parties were ad idem that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. The judgment notes that the parties are 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the case is concluded by prior judgments, implying the revenue likely agreed with the petitioner's stance based on those precedents.