Ms Nishant Sales Syndicate Faridabad vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nishant Sales Syndicate, Faridabad, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The core issue was whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, constituted proper service of these documents on the petitioner. This was in the context of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents were the State of Haryana and others. The judgment notes that the issue is no longer res integra, having been decided by this Court in previous cases.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and had been concluded by previous judgments of the Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in WP-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 pronouncements, which have already addressed the question of whether uploading notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes proper service under the relevant sections of the GST Act, the Court found the instant case to be squarely covered. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the previous judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal, www.gst.gov.in, under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, amounts to proper service of such documents on the assessee, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that such an upload did not constitute proper service. (The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond the framing of the issue, but implies this stance by referencing prior judgments). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that such an upload did constitute proper service. (Similar to the petitioner, the judgment does not detail the revenue's specific arguments but implies this stance by referencing prior judgments).