Avinash Kumar vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Avinash Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking preponement and disposal of his main writ petition. The petitioner sought to have his case decided in light of a previous judgment in Luxmi Traders vs. UT of Chandigarh and others. The core of the dispute revolved around whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common GST portal under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ constituted proper service on the petitioner, as per Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Both parties agreed that the issue was no longer res integra.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by the previous judgments of the High Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and further clarified in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026. The Court did not independently analyze the provisions of Section 169 and Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, but rather relied on the established precedent. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is identical to a previously decided case by the same High Court, it should be disposed of in the same manner. The operative direction was to dispose of the instant writ petition in the same terms as the cited judgments. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading 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? Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the present case was covered by the judgment in Luxmi Traders vs. UT of Chandigarh and Others, and further clarified by The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. Therefore, the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as those judgments. Revenue/State: The respondent did not present any separate arguments, conceding that the matter was concluded by the aforementioned judgments of the High Court.