The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or an Order-in-Original (OIO) on the GST common portal does not amount to valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, unless the taxpayer acknowledges receipt or participates in the proceedings. 

The bench of  Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor has observed that the issue is already settled by its earlier judgments in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., and disposed of the writ petition in identical terms. 

Buy Now: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the manner in which GST authorities had served the notice and adjudication order. The principal legal issue before the Court was whether uploading the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST common portal could be treated as proper service in terms of Sections 169 and 146 of the CGST Act, 2017. 

The petitioner contended that such electronic uploading alone could not trigger legal consequences, including limitation for filing an appeal, where the taxpayer had neither acknowledged receipt nor effectively received the documents. 

The High Court observed that the controversy was no longer open for debate, having already been conclusively decided in its earlier decision in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and subsequently clarified in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana. Accordingly, the Court found no reason to revisit the settled legal position. 

The Bench reiterated the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders, which distinguish between cases where taxpayers have actively participated in proceedings and those where ex parte orders are passed solely because notices were uploaded on the portal without actual service. 

The Court reaffirmed that uploading an SCN on the GST portal alone cannot be deemed sufficient service unless the taxpayer acknowledges it or files a reply. Where only portal uploading is relied upon and no reply is filed, resulting in an ex parte adjudication, the proceedings must be restored to the stage of issuance of the SCN, giving the taxpayer four weeks to submit a response. If an Order-in-Original is served only by uploading it on the common portal after contested proceedings, the limitation period for filing an appeal does not commence merely because of such uploading. Appeals dismissed solely on the ground of limitation in such circumstances are liable to be restored for consideration on merits. In cases involving both defective service of the SCN and dismissal of appeal on limitation, the adjudication order as well as the appellate order are liable to be set aside, with proceedings restored to the stage of issuance of the Show Cause Notice. 

The State sought to distinguish the earlier judgments by relying upon Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, which retrospectively amended the notification issued under Section 146 of the CGST Act concerning the GST common portal.

According to the revenue, the retrospective amendment empowered the common portal to perform all functions prescribed under the CGST Rules, thereby validating service through portal uploading. 

The High Court referred to its clarification in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. and rejected the revenue’s contention.

The Bench noted that although the Finance Act retrospectively expanded the functions capable of being performed through the common portal, the CGST Rules themselves do not expressly authorize service of Show Cause Notices or adjudication orders merely by uploading them on the portal.

The Court observed that while the CGST Rules extensively use the expression “Common Portal” for purposes such as registration, return filing, tax payment, refunds, appeals, e-way bills, and e-invoicing, none of those provisions specifically designate the portal as a legally recognized mode for serving SCNs or adjudication orders. Consequently, the retrospective amendment could not override the statutory requirement governing service of notices. 

Reiterating its earlier observations, the High Court emphasized that the complex process through which taxpayers are expected to locate notices under different tabs of the GST portal cannot be accepted as lawful service, particularly when failure to notice such uploads can result in serious civil consequences, including tax demands, penalties, and dismissal of statutory appeals.

The Court held that procedural convenience cannot dilute the safeguards built into the statutory scheme governing service of notices and orders. 

Since the legal issue was fully covered by the earlier decisions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. The Court also ordered that all pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. 

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: Patanjali Foods Receives GST Order Over Alleged Wrongful ITC Availment