Paramjit Singh And Company vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Paramjit Singh and Company, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the service of a notice and an order-in-original. The petitioner contended that uploading these documents in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) did not constitute proper service. The respondents were the State of Punjab and others. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the validity of electronic service of notices and orders. The procedural history indicates this is a writ petition filed directly before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the question raised in the writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decisions 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. The reasoning was that these prior judgments had already addressed and concluded the issue of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those previous judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents.

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 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 electronic uploading does not constitute proper service. The revenue (State of Punjab and others) did not appear to have presented arguments as the judgment notes that the parties were 'ad idem' that the case was concluded by previous judgments. The Court's decision was based on the premise that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided by prior judgments of the same Court.