The Punjab & Haryana High Court has once again held that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or Order-in-Original (OIO) under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal does not amount to valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor reiterated that such portal uploads, without proper communication or acknowledgment, cannot trigger limitation for filing an appeal or deprive an assessee of an opportunity to contest proceedings.
The principal issue before the High Court was whether uploading an SCN and the subsequent adjudication order under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST common portal (www.gst.gov.in) could be treated as valid service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
The petitioner challenged the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the notices and orders were never properly served and that mere uploading on the portal could not substitute the statutory requirement of communication prescribed under the GST law.
The High Court observed that the controversy had already been conclusively decided in its earlier decisions in: Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Others, and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Others (CWP-15601-2026) decided on July 23, 2026.
Accordingly, the Court held that the present case was squarely covered by these precedents and required no different interpretation.
Reiterating the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders, the Court emphasized several important safeguards for taxpayers.
The Court reiterated that service of a Show Cause Notice cannot be treated as valid merely because it has been uploaded on the GST portal, unless the taxpayer has acknowledged its receipt or has actually responded by filing a reply. Where the assessee has no knowledge of the notice and does not participate in the proceedings, such uploading alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement of service.
Where an SCN was uploaded only on the portal and an ex parte adjudication order followed because the taxpayer failed to respond, the Court held that such proceedings must be restored to the stage of issuance of the SCN. The assessee must be granted four weeks to file a reply, after which the Department must provide a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.
The Court further reiterated that where an adjudication order is passed after a contest but is communicated only by uploading it on the portal, the limitation period for filing an appeal does not commence. The affected taxpayer would be entitled to file an appeal within four weeks from the Court’s order.
The Bench also reaffirmed that if an appellate authority had dismissed an appeal solely on the ground of limitation where the adjudication order had only been uploaded on the portal, such appellate orders deserve to be set aside and the appeals restored for decision on merits.
The State argued that the earlier judgment in Luxmi Traders had overlooked Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, which retrospectively amended the notification issued under Section 146 of the CGST Act and expanded the functions capable of being performed through the Common Portal.
According to the Revenue, this retrospective amendment validated the communication of notices and orders through the GST portal.
The High Court rejected this contention by referring to its recent clarification in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd.It held that although the Finance Act, 2022 retrospectively expanded the functions of the Common Portal, none of the provisions of the CGST Rules specifically authorize the Common Portal to serve Show Cause Notices or adjudication orders.
The Court examined the GST Rules and observed that references to the Common Portal are confined to functions such as Registration; Filing of returns; Payment of tax; Refund processing; Appeals; E-way bills; E-invoicing; and Other specified statutory functions.
However, no provision expressly provides that uploading an SCN or adjudication order on the Common Portal constitutes legal service upon the taxpayer.
The Bench observed that the complicated process through which notices and orders are merely uploaded on the portal cannot receive judicial approval when it leads to serious civil consequences for taxpayers.
The Court emphasized that statutory communication requirements exist to ensure taxpayers receive actual notice before adverse orders are passed, and these safeguards cannot be diluted merely because documents are available somewhere within the GST portal.
Since the controversy was fully governed by the earlier decisions in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., the High Court disposed of the writ petition on the same terms.
The Court further directed that if the taxpayer had already deposited the mandatory 10% pre-deposit while filing an appeal, the appeal should be heard and decided on merits; any recovery already effected would remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings; and any attachment of the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the impugned order 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: GST on Apartment Maintenance Charges
