M/S Jmd Engineers vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s JMD Engineers, Faridabad, 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 common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) does not constitute proper service. The respondents were the State of Haryana and others, including the Union of India. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by previous judgments of the same Court. 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. Based on these precedents, the Court found that the method of service employed, i.e., uploading notices and orders on the GST portal, was considered in those judgments. The ratio decidendi from the cited cases would dictate the outcome here. The Court did not delve into the specifics of Section 169 or Section 146 in this particular judgment but relied on the established legal position from its prior rulings. The operative direction was to dispose of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments.

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 or State did not present any arguments as the matter was considered concluded by previous judgments of the Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that service must be effective and bring the notice to the attention of the assessee, which is not guaranteed by mere uploading on a portal without further notification. The Court was asked to decide if the statutory provisions for service were met by this method of communication.