Ms Badri Vishal Protection And Company vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Badri Vishal Protection and Company, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the validity of service of a notice or order. The core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice on the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constituted proper service. The petitioner argued that this method of communication was not valid service. The respondents were the State of Haryana and the Union of India. The tax period and the specific order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned.
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 and Others, and a subsequent clarification 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, the Court found that the method of service in question had been addressed and concluded. Therefore, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The specific reasoning from those prior judgments regarding Section 169 and Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, and the ratio decidendi are not detailed in this extract, but the outcome is that the petition is decided based on precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading a notice and order on the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common 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? The petitioner contended that such an upload does not constitute valid service. The revenue (Union of India and State of Haryana) argued that this method of service is valid. Both parties agreed that the issue was not new and had been decided by previous judgments of the Court.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
257 IN
M/S BADRI VI 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 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP
Date ISHAL PROTECTION AND COMPA
VERSUS ARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHI Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ramnarayan Yadav, Advoca Mr. Yogesh Yadav, 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
NJAB AND HARYANA
P-38125-2025 (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.