Innotech Infosolutions Through Its Partner Mamta Chatrath vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Innotech Infosolutions, 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 on the common GST portal, www.gst.gov.in, under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The revenue authorities, Union of India and others, were the respondents. The dispute centers on 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 squarely covered by its previous judgments 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. Consequently, the Court disposed of the instant writ petition in the same terms as those prior judgments. The reasoning implies that the Court found the method of service challenged by the petitioner to be either valid or invalid based on the precedents set in the cited cases. The specific findings and reasoning from those prior judgments, which would form the ratio decidendi for this case, are not detailed in the provided text but are implicitly adopted. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the earlier decisions.

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, on the other hand, contended that it does. Both parties agreed that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down 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. The revenue did not present any separate arguments beyond agreeing that the matter was covered by the aforementioned judgments.