Facts of the Case

Bansal Traders challenged proceedings culminating in an ex-parte order-in-original where both the underlying show cause notice and the order itself had been uploaded only in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST common portal (www.gst.gov.in). The short legal question before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was whether such portal-only uploading amounts to proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, said to be an illiterate person with no actual knowledge of the notice, relied on the Court's own recent rulings in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (CWP-27139-2025) and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana (CWP-15601-2026), which had already answered this question.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading a show cause notice and/or order-in-original only under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal satisfies the requirement of proper service under Sections 146 and 169 of the CGST Act read with the CGST Rules.
  2. Whether the retrospective validation of the common portal notification under Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022 (via the Fifth Schedule) extends the portal's role to cover service of SCNs/orders as well.
  3. What consequential relief follows for ex-parte orders and appeals dismissed as time-barred where service was defective in this manner.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Service of an SCN or order merely by uploading it on the common portal, without actual acknowledgment or a reply having been filed, cannot be treated as effective service — a position already settled by the Court's own Luxmi Traders ruling.
  • None of the provisions of the CGST Rules, 2017 that refer to the 'Common Portal' — spanning registration, returns, payment, refund, appeal, recovery, e-way bill and e-invoicing functions — actually designates the portal as the mode for serving SCNs or orders; only Rule 142 governs electronic communication of orders, which the petitioner said was not properly complied with either.
  • Being an illiterate person, the petitioner had no actual knowledge of the notice or order uploaded only on the portal, and the resultant civil consequences (an ex-parte adjudication) should not be visited upon him without genuine service.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The revenue argued that the Luxmi Traders decision needed to be revisited because it did not consider Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, which retrospectively amended the January 2018 notification (under Section 146 read with Section 20 IGST Act) to expand the Common Portal's functions, from 22 June 2017, to cover 'all functions provided under the CGST Rules, 2017' — arguably including service of orders.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reiterated its detailed reasoning in Luxmi Traders (paragraphs 58–60) and its clarification in Amar Cooperative LC Society, holding that service of an SCN/order cannot be deemed sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed by the taxpayer.
  • It rejected the revenue's Section 115/Fifth Schedule argument, finding on a review of every Rule referencing the 'Common Portal' (registration, returns, payment, refund, advance ruling, appeal, recovery, e-way bill, e-invoicing) that none of them designates the Common Portal as the mode for serving SCNs or orders, so the retrospective amendment does not change the outcome.
  • Applying the Luxmi Traders conclusions, it held that where an ex-parte order was passed solely because a portal-only SCN went unanswered, the proceedings stand restored to the SCN stage with liberty to file a reply within four weeks; where an appeal against a portal-served order was dismissed on limitation, that dismissal is set aside and the appeal restored to be heard on merits; and any resultant bank attachment stands revoked, subject to any pre-deposit already made being carried forward.
  • Since the petitioner's case was found squarely covered by these two precedents, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms.

Important Clarification

  • The GST common portal being referenced as 'Common Portal' in dozens of CGST Rules for functions like registration, return filing, payment, refund and e-way bills does not, without more, make it a valid channel for serving show cause notices or orders — that requires clear statutory or rule-based designation, which currently does not exist for SCN/order service.
  • Even the retrospective, Finance-Act-driven expansion of the Common Portal's 'functions' under the Fifth Schedule to the Finance Act, 2022 does not cure this gap, since none of the substantive CGST Rules referencing the portal actually deals with service of SCNs or orders.
  • Where an ex-parte order or a limitation-based appellate dismissal traces back to portal-only service, the correct remedy is to restore proceedings to the SCN stage (or restore the appeal on merits) with a fresh opportunity to respond — not to dismiss the taxpayer's challenge on technical grounds.

Sections Involved

  • Section 146, CGST Act, 2017 – empowers the Government to notify a Common Electronic Portal for specified GST functions.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 – prescribes the modes of service of notices, orders and other communications under the Act.
  • Rule 142, CGST Rules, 2017 – requires electronic communication of show cause notices and orders.
  • Section 115, Finance Act, 2022 – retrospectively amended the January 2018 Common Portal notification per the Fifth Schedule, an argument the Court held did not extend to service of SCNs/orders.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee, with the matter restored to the SCN/appeal stage on the footing that portal-only upload under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab is not valid service, and any consequent bank attachment revoked.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Case No.: CWP-24068-2026 (O&M). Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor. Date of Decision: 5 August 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.