Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Tirupati Associates, challenged the validity of service of a GST show cause notice and the consequent order-in-original, both of which were uploaded only on the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Common Portal (www.gst.gov.in). The short question raised was whether such uploading, without more, amounts to proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Revenue relied on the Finance Act, 2022 amendment inserting Section 115, which retrospectively empowers the Government to expand the functions performable on the Common Portal, arguing that this cured any earlier deficiency identified by the Court in its Luxmi Traders judgment.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading of an SCN/order only on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the Common Portal amounts to valid service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act.
  2. Whether the retrospective amendment introducing Section 115 (validating certain notifications) alters the position taken by the Court in Luxmi Traders.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The CGST Rules, 2017 nowhere permit uploading of SCN/orders on the Common Portal as a mode of service; Rule 142 alone governs electronic communication of orders.
  • The 'Common Portal' is used in the Rules only for limited functions such as registration, returns, payment, refund and appeals — not for service of notices/orders.
  • Being an illiterate person, the petitioner had no actual knowledge of the notice/order uploaded only on the portal.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Service by uploading on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned has knowledge and has contested the proceedings by filing a reply.
  • The Finance Act, 2022 amendment introducing Section 115 retrospectively validated the notification empowering all CGST Rules functions, including service, to be performed on the Common Portal, and this aspect was not placed before the Court in Luxmi Traders.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench held that the issue stood concluded by its earlier judgment in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (CWP-27139-2025), further clarified in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana.
  • Per the Luxmi Traders guidelines: SCN service by mere portal upload is insufficient unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed; where no reply is filed and an ex-parte order results, proceedings stand restored to the SCN stage with four weeks to reply; where an order-in-original is passed after contest but served only via portal, limitation for appeal is not triggered and a four-week window to appeal is given; appeals dismissed on limitation in such cases stand restored for hearing on merits.
  • The Bench rejected the Revenue's reliance on the Section 115 amendment, holding that none of the CGST Rules provisions refer to the Common Portal for service of SCN/orders and that this issue had already been considered in Luxmi Traders.
  • The writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., with any pre-deposit already made to be protected and bank attachments (if any) to stand revoked in appropriate cases.

Important Clarification

  • Mere uploading of an SCN or order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Common Portal, without acknowledged receipt or a reply having been filed, does not constitute valid service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act.
  • The retrospective Finance Act, 2022 amendment (Section 115, Fifth Schedule) enabling the Common Portal to perform 'all functions' under the CGST Rules does not, by itself, convert portal-upload into a recognised mode of service of SCNs/orders.

Sections Involved

  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 – modes of service of notice.
  • Section 146, CGST Act, 2017 – power to notify Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal.
  • Section 115, CGST Act (inserted by Finance Act, 2022) – retrospective validation of notifications relating to the Common Portal.
  • Rule 142 & Rule 145(5), CGST Rules, 2017 – communication of orders and uploading on the portal.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the Assessee in the same terms as Luxmi Traders – proceedings restored to the SCN stage or the limitation for appeal treated as not triggered, as applicable, with bank attachments to be revoked subject to any pre-deposit already made being protected.

Case Details

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; CWP-2349-2026 (O&M); Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor; Order dated 27.07.2026.

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.