Saroj Yadav Surveying Consultant vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Saroj Yadav Surveying Consultant, 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 others, including the Union of India. The core of the dispute revolved around whether this method of notification satisfied the requirements of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and the subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. The Court found that these prior rulings addressed the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constituted proper service. As the present case was identical to those previously decided, the Court did not undertake a fresh analysis of the law. The reasoning was based on the principle of judicial precedent, where a matter already decided by a higher court or a coordinate bench is binding. The operative direction was to dispose of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading 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 accordance with Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that this method of uploading documents did not constitute proper service. The revenue or State did not present any arguments in the provided text, as the parties were stated to be ad idem that the issue was concluded by previous judgments. The petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court 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.