Bhoop Singh vs. State Of Haryana And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Bhoop Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The petitioner contended that uploading these documents on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, did not constitute proper service. The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and another respondent, presumably argued for the validity of such electronic service. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order are not explicitly stated in the provided text, nor is the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own prior 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 July 23, 2026. These judgments, as clarified by the latter, addressed the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service. The reasoning behind these prior judgments, which the present case followed, would have established the legal precedent on the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act concerning electronic service. The Court disposed of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the cited judgments, implying that the petitioner's challenge was either accepted or rejected based on those precedents. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the prior rulings.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original in the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, amounts to proper service of it 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's contention is not explicitly detailed but is implied to be in favor of the validity of electronic service through the portal. The court noted that the issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by previous judgments of the same court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is essential for due process. The revenue's argument would likely have centered on the provisions of the GST Act concerning electronic service and the established practice of the GST portal.