The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling in favour of taxpayers, holding that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or adjudication order under the GST law on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal does not constitute valid service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Consequently, such uploading alone cannot trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. 

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor decided a batch of 42 writ petitions and issued detailed directions restoring proceedings and appeals in cases where taxpayers had been deprived of their statutory remedies solely because notices or orders had been uploaded on the GST portal without valid service. 

BUY NOW: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes

The lead petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act after scrutiny proceedings were initiated for alleged discrepancies in GST returns. According to the petitioner, although a Show Cause Notice and the final order had been uploaded on the GST portal, they were never served through any legally recognized mode such as email containing the order itself, registered post, courier, or personal delivery.

The petitioner argued that because the department treated portal uploading as valid service, the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal expired before the petitioner became aware of the order, effectively depriving it of the appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. 

The principal question before the Court was whether uploading notices and adjudication orders in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST common portal amounts to valid service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act, thereby commencing the limitation period for filing statutory appeals. 

The petitioners contended that the GST portal had never been notified under Section 146 for the specific purpose of serving statutory notices and adjudication orders. The department merely sent an email informing taxpayers that a document had been uploaded; the actual notice or order was never attached. No personal hearing was granted in many cases before ex parte orders were passed. The design of the GST portal made it extremely difficult for taxpayers to discover uploaded notices because they were hidden within multiple layers of menu options under “Services” → “User Services” → “Notices and Orders” → “View Additional Notices and Orders.” 

Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G. on behalf of the department argued that Section 169(1)(d) expressly recognizes making notices available on the common portal as a valid mode of service.

According to the department, taxpayers routinely use the GST portal for compliance and therefore cannot claim ignorance merely because notices were uploaded there. It was also argued that emails notifying taxpayers about uploaded notices supplemented the service process and that strict limitation periods under the GST Act should be enforced. 

After examining Sections 146 and 169 of the CGST Act along with the notifications issued under Section 146, the Court found that although the Government had notified GST portals for purposes such as registration, return filing, tax payments, e-way bills and e-invoicing, no notification had ever been issued authorizing the GST portal as the notified common portal for service of statutory notices or adjudication orders.

The Bench observed that when the statute prescribes that something must be done in a particular manner, it has to be done only in that manner and not otherwise. Since the notified purposes under Section 146 did not include service of notices or orders, uploading documents on the portal alone could not constitute valid statutory service. 

The Court also rejected the Revenue’s contention that email notifications amounted to valid service.

It observed that taxpayers merely received emails stating that an order or notice had been uploaded. The emails did not contain the actual Show Cause Notice or adjudication order as attachments. Therefore, such emails could not qualify as communication under Section 169(1)(c), which contemplates sending the communication itself to the registered email address. 

One of the noteworthy aspects of the judgment is the Court’s criticism of the GST portal’s user interface.

The Bench remarked that a taxpayer visiting the dashboard receives no visible alert regarding pending statutory proceedings. Instead, locating notices requires navigating through several menus before eventually reaching the “Additional Notices and Orders” section.

The Court described the process as being akin to “playing a game of treasure hunt,” observing that important legal communications cannot be hidden in such an obscure manner when serious financial and penal consequences follow. 

Recognising the increasing reliance on digital governance, the High Court urged the GST authorities to redesign the portal to make statutory communications more transparent and accessible.

The Court recommended introducing prominent dashboard alerts; mandatory pop-up notifications; OTP-based acknowledgement of important legal communications; automated SMS alerts; and a dedicated dashboard section exclusively for statutory notices and orders.

According to the Bench, these measures would transform the GST portal into an effective communication platform rather than a procedural trap for taxpayers. 

The Court framed comprehensive directions governing all connected cases.

It held that mere uploading of a Show Cause Notice on the GST portal will not amount to valid service unless the taxpayer acknowledges its receipt or files a reply. Where ex parte adjudication orders were passed solely because notices had only been uploaded on the portal, proceedings will stand restored to the stage of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, with taxpayers permitted to file replies within four weeks. Where adjudication orders were passed after the contest but served only through portal uploading, the limitation period for filing appeals would not commence, and affected taxpayers may file appeals within four weeks. Appeals earlier dismissed as time-barred because orders had only been uploaded on the GST portal shall be restored and heard on merits. Where both ex parte adjudication orders and appellate orders suffered from defective service, both orders would stand set aside and proceedings restored to the Show Cause Notice stage.

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 Service Tax Demand Without Proof Of Service of SCN: CESTAT