Guru Nanak Homeopathy Pharmacy vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Guru Nanak Homeopathy Pharmacy, 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 revenue authorities uploaded these documents on the common GST portal under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’. The petitioner contended that this method of uploading did not constitute proper service. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the reliance on previous judgments of the same court.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and stood concluded by the judgment of the High Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. This judgment was further clarified by the Court in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as these previous judgments. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 169 and Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, in relation to portal uploads, are not detailed in this judgment, but the principle established in those cases dictates the outcome here. No specific operative directions are mentioned beyond disposing of the petition in terms of the prior rulings.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original in the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service of the same 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 uploading does not constitute proper service. The revenue authorities did not present any arguments, as the parties were ad idem and the issue was considered concluded by previous judgments of the Court. The petitioner relied on the principle that proper service must be established, and mere uploading on a portal might not fulfill the statutory requirements for service, especially if it does not guarantee actual notice to the assessee.