Singla Trader vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Singla Trader, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The revenue authorities uploaded these documents on the common GST portal under the tab 'View Additional Notices and Orders'. The petitioner contended that this method of uploading did not constitute proper service. The tax period and the specific authority that passed the order are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the question raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and has been concluded 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, which was further clarified by another judgment 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 current case is squarely covered by these prior rulings, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, implying that the relief granted or denied in the prior cases would apply here. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 169 and Section 146 of the GST Act were not detailed in this judgment, as it relied on the fact that the issue was already decided.

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 Contention: The petitioner argued that uploading documents on the portal in the specified tab does not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the issue is already settled by previous judgments of the High Court and therefore, the petition should be dismissed. They relied on the judgments 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.