Facts of the Case

M/s Goyal Steel Furniture House challenged a show cause notice and an order-in-original before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, both of which had been uploaded only under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST common portal, www.gst.gov.in, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended it had no actual knowledge of the notice or order due to this manner of service. The Bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Rohit Kapoor, found the short question — whether such upload amounts to proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 — already concluded by the Court's own rulings in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana, and decided the present matter on 11.08.2026.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading a show cause notice or order-in-original only under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST common portal amounts to proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act.
  2. Whether the retrospective amendment introduced by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022 validates such portal-only service.
  3. What relief follows where an ex-parte order or a time-barred appellate dismissal resulted from such defective service.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Being an illiterate person, the petitioner had no knowledge of the notice or order-in-original, both of which were uploaded only under the less-visible 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab rather than being served through any acknowledged mode.
  • Rule 142 of the CGST Rules is the only provision requiring electronic communication of orders, and none of the Rules identifies the Common Portal as a mode for service of a show cause notice or order under Section 169, which is distinct from the limited functions (registration, returns, payment) for which the term 'Common Portal' is otherwise used.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The revenue argued that service by uploading on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person has actual knowledge and has contested the proceedings by filing a reply, and separately contended that Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022 retrospectively validated the 2018 notification enabling all CGST Rules functions to be performed on the Common Portal.

Court Order / Findings

  • Reaffirming its ratio in Luxmi Traders (as further clarified in Amar Cooperative LC Society), the Court held that service of a show cause notice cannot be deemed sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed, and this position is unaffected by the retrospective notification amendment under Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, since none of the CGST Rules actually designates the Common Portal as the mode of service of a notice or order.
  • Since the order in the present case was uploaded only on the Common Portal and the petitioner, being illiterate, had no knowledge of it, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders — meaning the proceedings would ordinarily stand restored to the stage of the show cause notice, with liberty to file a reply.
  • The Court clarified that if the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the amount towards statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing an appeal, that appeal itself shall be heard and decided on merits instead of being restored to the notice stage.
  • Any recovery from the petitioner was directed to abide by the final adjudication, and any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the challenged order was directed to stand revoked.

Important Clarification

  • Mere upload of a show cause notice or order-in-original under the GST portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab does not amount to valid service under Section 169 unless the assessee acknowledges receipt or engages with the proceedings by filing a reply.
  • The retrospective amendment under Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022 (validating the 2018 notification) does not cure this defect, because none of the CGST Rules actually authorises the Common Portal as a mode for serving notices or orders — its use is confined to specific functions like registration, returns and payment.
  • Where an ex-parte order followed defective portal-only service, or an appeal against such an order was dismissed on limitation, the standard relief is restoration to the show cause notice stage (or restoration of the appeal on merits, if pre-deposit was already made) along with revocation of any consequential bank attachment.

Sections Involved

  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes valid modes of service of notices, orders and other communications.
  • Section 146, CGST Act, 2017 — empowers the Government to notify a Common Portal for specified functions under the Act.
  • Section 115, Finance Act, 2022 — retrospectively validates the notification expanding functions performable on the Common Portal, held not to extend to service of notices/orders.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee. The defective portal-only service was held improper, restoring the proceedings to the show cause stage (or the appeal to be heard on merits if pre-deposit was made), with the bank attachment revoked.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Case No.: CWP-14915-2026 (O&M)
Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor
Date of Decision: 11.08.2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.