Govinda Cosmetic vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Govinda Cosmetic, 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 core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice on the GST portal under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ constituted proper service, as per Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contested the adequacy of this method of service. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and the State of Haryana, likely argued for the validity of the service. The procedural history indicates this is a writ petition filed directly before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and stood concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders and Others, and a subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. The reasoning was that these prior judgments had already addressed and decided the question of whether uploading notices on the GST portal constituted proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017. The ratio decidendi from these precedents would be that the method of service as challenged by the petitioner is considered valid. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original on the GST portal under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ amounts to proper service, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner contended that such an upload does not constitute proper service. The revenue, on the other hand, argued that this method of service is valid under the aforementioned sections of the GST Act. The parties were ad idem that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service is essential for due process, while the revenue likely relied on the interpretation of Section 169 and the administrative procedures established for GST communication.