Zimidara Khad Store vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Zimidara Khad Store, 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 revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, was the respondent. The tax period and the specific authority who passed the order-in-original are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the case was brought before the High Court via a writ petition.

Held

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by its previous judgments. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and a subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. The Court found that these prior judgments had already addressed and concluded the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The specific findings and reasoning from Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. are not detailed in this excerpt, but the ratio decidendi is that the court's prior pronouncements on the matter are binding and determinative.

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 an upload does not constitute proper service. The revenue did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, but the court noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was concluded by previous judgments. The court's framing of the issue implies that the core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the GST Act provisions concerning the mode of service and whether digital upload on a portal meets the statutory requirements for effective communication to the assessee.