Shri Ram Cotton Factory vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Ram Cotton Factory, 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 to the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constituted proper service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contested the sufficiency of this method of communication as valid service. The respondents, Union of India and the State of Haryana, were represented by their respective counsel. The procedural history indicates that this issue had been previously adjudicated by the High Court.
Held
The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by its previous judgments. 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. The ratio decidendi from these prior judgments, which the present case follows, is that uploading a notice to the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of these earlier pronouncements. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and the operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading a notice to the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that such an upload did not constitute proper service of the notice. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond this core contention, it implies a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the service method. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, Union of India and the State of Haryana, argued that the issue was no longer res integra and had been conclusively decided by previous judgments of the High Court. They relied on the High Court's own prior decisions to support their stance that the service was indeed proper.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
303
IN T
SHRI RAM CO UNION OF IND 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 OTTON FACTORY
VERSUS DIA AND ORS.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHI Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate Mr. Bharat Jain, Advocate Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate 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-38577-2025 (O&M) e of Decision: 14.08.2026
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.