International Cork Mills LLP vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, International Cork Mills LLP, 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 respondents were the State of Haryana and the Union of India. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the method of service of official communications.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been decided. The Court referred to its previous judgment in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, which was further clarified by another judgment in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. Based on these prior decisions, which squarely covered the present case, the Court disposed of the instant writ petition in the same terms as those judgments. The specific reasoning from the cited judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 169 and Section 146 of the GST Act, and the implications of uploading notices on the GST portal, were not detailed in this judgment but were implicitly adopted.

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 under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that such an upload does not constitute proper service as per the relevant provisions of the GST Act. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents did not present any specific arguments as the judgment notes that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was already decided by previous judgments of the Court.