Ldk Lami Print Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s LDK Lami Print Private Limited, 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 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 Haryana and others, including the Union of India. The core of the dispute revolved around whether this method of uploading constituted valid service under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held

The Court held that the question of whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was no longer res integra. The Court referred to its previous judgment in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, which had addressed this issue. This judgment was further clarified by another decision in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. Based on these precedents, the Court found that the instant writ petition was squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, the petition was disposed of in the same terms as the prior decisions.

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? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the method of service employed, i.e., uploading documents on the GST portal, was not proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and the Union of India, implicitly supported the validity of the service, as the Court noted that the issue was concluded by previous judgments. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments but indicates their stance aligned with the established legal position.