Avinash Kumar vs. State Of Punjab And Ors.

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 core issue 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, in light of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought disposal of his case in line with a previous judgment of the same court in Luxmi Traders vs. UT of Chandigarh and others. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, was also a party to the proceedings.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition was squarely covered by the judgments previously rendered by 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. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as these prior decisions. The Court did not independently analyze the provisions of Section 169 or Section 146 of the GST Act, 2017, but relied on the established precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the cited judgments. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, nor were any specific procedural steps detailed beyond the filing of the writ petition and the application for preponement. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 it on the petitioner, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present case was concluded by the judgment of the High Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and further clarified by CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. Therefore, the petition should be disposed of in the same terms as these precedents. Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the parties were ad idem, meaning they agreed that the issue was no longer res integra and was concluded by the aforementioned judgments. No separate arguments were recorded for the revenue.