The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that merely uploading a Goods and Services Tax (GST) Show Cause Notice (SCN) or adjudication order on the GST Common Portal does not amount to valid legal service. 

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor has observed that the mode of communication cannot be treated as sufficient compliance with statutory requirements, particularly when it results in serious civil consequences for the assessee. 

The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice dated April 19, 2024, the consequential Order-in-Original dated June 20, 2025, the rectification order dated December 11, 2025, and the appellate order dated January 29, 2026, whereby its appeal had been dismissed as time-barred. 

Buy Now: June 2026 Ultimate Legal & Taxation Combo

According to the petitioner, no reply had been filed to the Show Cause Notice because it had engaged a representative who failed to respond on its behalf. It was further contended that the petitioner, being an illiterate person unfamiliar with the GST portal procedures, had no knowledge that the case had been selected for scrutiny or that any tax demand had been raised against it. Consequently, an ex parte assessment order came to be passed. 

The petitioner relied upon the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s earlier decision in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, wherein the Court had held that service of notices merely by uploading them on the GST Common Portal does not constitute valid service of notice. It was argued that the present case deserved identical relief by permitting adjudication after granting an effective opportunity of hearing. 

The State opposed the petition by contending that the earlier decision in Luxmi Traders had been rendered without considering the retrospective amendment introduced through Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022.

The department argued that the amendment retrospectively expanded the scope of the notification issued under Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby enabling all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed through the Common Portal. On that basis, it submitted that uploading the Show Cause Notice and orders on the GST portal constituted valid communication. 

The High Court was not persuaded by the Revenue’s arguments. It accepted the petitioner’s submission that although the CGST Rules refer to the Common Portal for several statutory functions—including registration, return filing, tax payment, refunds, appeals, e-way bills and e-invoicing—they do not specifically authorize service of Show Cause Notices or adjudication orders through mere uploading on the portal. 

The Bench observed that Rule 142 only contemplates electronic communication in a specified manner and that no provision of the CGST Rules expressly provides that uploading an SCN or order on the Common Portal would amount to valid service upon an assessee. The Court further noted that the Common Portal has been assigned specific functions under different provisions of the Rules, but service of notices is not one of them. 

Reaffirming its earlier ruling in Luxmi Traders, the Court held that the complex process through which the authorities sought to treat portal uploads as valid service could not receive judicial approval, particularly where it deprived taxpayers of an effective opportunity to defend themselves and resulted in adverse civil consequences. 

The Bench also observed that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment did not warrant a departure from the legal position already laid down in Luxmi Traders. In the present case, the order had only been uploaded on the Common Portal, while the petitioner had specifically asserted that, owing to illiteracy and lack of awareness, it had no knowledge of the proceedings. 

Following the precedent in Luxmi Traders, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with appropriate directions.

The Court clarified that if the petitioner had already deposited the statutory pre-deposit of 10% while filing the appeal, the appellate authority should hear and decide the appeal on merits instead of rejecting it on limitation. The Bench further directed that any recovery already effected would remain subject to the final adjudication of the proceedings, while any attachment of the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the impugned orders would stand revoked. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: No Proposal to Scrap LTCG Tax on Equities for Domestic Investors: Finance Ministry