Ms Trans Eco Need vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Trans E, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of service of a notice. The core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice on the GST portal under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ constituted proper service, as per Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Advocate, and the respondents, Union of India and the State of Haryana, were represented by their respective counsel. The tax period and the specific order or action under challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, nor is the amount in dispute.
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 and Others, and a subsequent clarification in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. These judgments had already addressed and concluded the question of whether uploading a notice on the GST portal under the ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ tab 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 operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading of a notice on the GST portal under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ amounts to proper service, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the uploading of a notice on the GST portal under the specified tab does not constitute proper service. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents contended that such uploading does constitute proper service. The parties were ad idem that the issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
258
IN T
M/S TRANS E STATE OF HA CORAM:- H
H
Present: M
M
M
f
M
w
M
f
M
f
* ASHWANI K
S petition is as original in th portal, being petitioner in v Services Tax
L case is no lon Court in CW Chandigarh THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP
Date CO NEED
VERSUS ARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHI Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ramnarayan Yadav, Advoca for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standi with Ms. Himanshi Gautam, Adv Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocate for respondent – Union of India. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., H for respondent - State. ***** KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Or Short question that requires s to whether uploading of a not he tab ‘View Additional Notices a g www.gst.gov.in amounts to p view of Section 169 read with S Act, 2017? Learned counsel for the parties nger res integra and stands concl WP-27139-2025, Luxmi Trade and Others. The said judgment
JAB AND HARYANA
P-38135-2025 (O&M) e of Decision:
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.