M/S Skylark Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Skylark Industries, 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 these documents on the GST portal under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ constituted proper service. The petitioner argued that this method of service was not in compliance with Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents were the State of Punjab and Others, including the Union of India.
Held
The Court held that the question raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and had been conclusively decided by this Court in previous judgments. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in CWP-27139-2023, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, which was further clarified in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. The ratio decidendi from these judgments established the legal position regarding the validity of service through the GST portal. Consequently, the Court found that the instant writ petition was squarely covered by these prior pronouncements. The Court disposed of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, 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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the method of service employed by the revenue authorities, i.e., uploading documents on the GST portal, did not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. They relied on previous judgments of the Court to support their claim. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the Additional Advocate General and Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided by previous judgments of the High Court. They did not present any separate arguments beyond referencing these precedents.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
216 I
M/s Skylark State of Punj
CORAM: H
H
Present M M f
M M M M *
ASHWANI KU
S petition is as original in th portal, being petitioner in and Services
L present case judgment of Territory of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGARH
Date of Industries
V jab and Others
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF J HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT K Mr. Chetan Jain, Advocate and Mr. Porush Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Stand Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Advocat Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate for **** UMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) Short question that requires s to whether uploading of a no he tab ‘View Additional Notices g www.gst.gov.in amounts to n view of Section 169 read wi Tax Act, 2017? Learned counsel for the par e is no longer res integra an this Court in CWP-27139-202 f Chandigarh and Others. T
JAB AND HARYANA AT H CWP-31858-2025 (O&M) f Decision:14thAugust, 2026. .…...Petitioner(s) V/s ......Respondent(s) JUSTICE KAPOOR , Punjab. ding Counsel, UOI, with te, and the respondent(s)-UOI. consideration in this writ otice as well as the order-in- and Orders’, on the common proper service of it, on the th Section 146 of the Goods rties are ad idem that the nd stands concluded by the 25, Luxmi Traders v. Union he said judgment has been VANDANA YADAV 2026.08.20 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-31858-2025 (O&M) further clarified by this Court in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. 3. As the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) as further clarified in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
[ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE
August 14, 2026 Rajesh/Vandana Yadav
Whether speaking / reasoned :
Yes / No Whether Reportable
:
Yes / No VANDANA YADAV 2026.08.20 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.