Shree Bankey Bihari vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Bankey Bihari, Faridabad, 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 petitioner contended that uploading these documents in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, did not constitute proper service. The revenue, represented by the State of Haryana and others, was the respondent. The tax period(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. 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 its previous 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. The reasoning behind these prior judgments, which the present case followed, likely addressed the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act concerning the validity of service through the GST portal. The ratio decidendi would be that service effected by uploading documents on the GST portal, as per the prescribed procedure, is considered valid service. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments, implying that the petitioner's challenge to the service was either upheld or dismissed based on the precedent. No specific operative directions beyond disposing of the petition were detailed, and no issues were expressly left undecided.

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? The petitioner argued that such uploading does not constitute proper service. The revenue did not present any specific arguments, but the court noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the matter was concluded by previous judgments. The court relied on 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, which clarified the issue.