Nawal Singh vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Nawal Singh, 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 in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) did not constitute proper service. The respondents are the State of Haryana and others. The tax period(s) are not specified. The authority that passed the order-in-original is not explicitly stated, but it is implied to be a GST authority. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The procedural history is that the petitioner filed this writ petition after receiving the notice and order-in-original via the GST portal.

Held

The Court held that the question raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra (undecided) and stood concluded by the judgment of the High Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. This earlier judgment was further clarified by the High Court in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. As the issue in the instant case was squarely covered by these prior judgments, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those judgments. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, concerning the validity of service through the GST portal, are not detailed in this judgment but are implicitly adopted. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the previous rulings.

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 uploading does not constitute proper service. The revenue or State did not present any arguments, as the parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the issue was already decided by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is essential for the validity of any notice or order. The revenue or State did not cite any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents, but rather agreed with the petitioner that the matter was concluded by prior judicial pronouncements.