M/S Yodha Mines And Minerals vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/S YODHA MINES AND MINERALS, 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 core of the dispute revolves around whether uploading these documents in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constitutes proper service on the petitioner, in light of Sections 169 and 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The State of Haryana and others are the respondents. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and has been concluded by previous judgments of this Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its decision in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, which was further clarified by another judgment in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. The ratio decidendi from these precedents is that uploading of a notice and order-in-original on the common GST portal under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab does not amount to proper service. Consequently, the instant 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 prior rulings.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service of such notice and order on the petitioner, in terms of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that uploading documents on the GST portal does not constitute proper service. (Implicitly, as the court disposed of the petition based on prior judgments). Revenue's Contention: The respondents (State of Haryana and others) likely contend that uploading on the portal is valid service, as evidenced by the court's reliance on previous judgments. (Implicitly, as the court disposed of the petition based on prior judgments). The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.