Ms Lark No Ferrous Metals Limited vs. Excise And Taxation Department Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Lark Non Ferrous Metals Limited, 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 core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice and order-in-original on the GST portal, specifically under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, constituted proper service under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The petitioner contested the sufficiency of this method of service. The respondents were the Taxation Department, Haryana, and the State of Haryana.

Held

The High Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been decided. The Court referred to its own previous judgments in WP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders and Others, and CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. These prior judgments, particularly the latter which further clarified the former, had already concluded that uploading a notice and order-in-original on the GST portal under the ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ tab constitutes proper service. Therefore, following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the earlier judgments. The Court did not provide new reasoning but relied on the established jurisprudence of the High Court on this specific point of service under the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a notice as well as the order-in-original on the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, amounts to proper service of it, on the view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the uploading of the notice and order-in-original on the GST portal under the specified tab did not constitute proper service. The specific grounds for this contention are not detailed in the provided text, but the challenge implies a disagreement with the revenue's interpretation of service provisions. Revenue/State's Argument: The revenue/State implicitly argued that the uploading on the GST portal did constitute proper service, as evidenced by the court's reliance on previous judgments that upheld such service. No specific arguments from the revenue are detailed, but their position is inferred from the court's ruling.