- Gugal Electrical And ENGG. Works Vs State of Punjab And Other (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
- Issue Before the Court
- Earlier Decision in Luxmi Traders
- Revenue's Submission on Finance Act, 2022
- Fifth Schedule and Retrospective Amendment
- Clarification in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd.
- Revenue's Contention
- Petitioner's Submissions
- Court's Observations and Reasoning
- Decision in the Present Case
- Cases Discussed
Gugal Electrical And ENGG. Works Vs State of Punjab And Other (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST common portal, gst.gov.in, amounts to proper service on the petitioner under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Court noted that the issue had already been considered in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, CWP-27139-2025, and subsequently clarified in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, CWP-15601-2026, decided on 23.07.2026.
In Luxmi Traders, the Court had concluded that service of a show cause notice upon an assessee could not be deemed sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the Common Portal, unless its receipt was acknowledged or a reply was filed. It further held that where an SCN was served only through portal uploading and an ex parte order followed without a reply, proceedings would be restored to the stage of issuance of the SCN. Where an order-in-original was passed after contest but served only through portal uploading, the limitation period for appeal would not be triggered.
The revenue submitted that Luxmi Traders had been decided without the Court being apprised of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, particularly Section 115. Section 115 retrospectively amended the notification issued under Section 146 of the CGST Act so that, apart from furnishing returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax, all functions provided under the CGST Rules could be performed through the Common Portal.
The Court considered the subsequent decision in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., where the revenue had relied upon the same retrospective amendment. The petitioner had contended that the CGST Rules did not permit uploading an SCN or order on the Common Portal for the purpose of service and that Rule 142 was the relevant provision concerning electronic communication of orders and related documents.
In The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., the Court found substance in the petitioner’s submissions and observed that the Rules referred to the Common Portal for various specified functions, but did not refer to it for service of an SCN or order. The Court was not persuaded to take a different view from Luxmi Traders merely because of the 2022 amendment.
In the present matter, the Court held that the issue was squarely covered by Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. and accordingly disposed of the writ petition in the same terms. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Issue Before the Court
The short question before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST common portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Earlier Decision in Luxmi Traders
The Court recorded that the issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by its judgment in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others.
The relevant conclusions in Luxmi Traders, as reproduced in the present judgment, were that mere uploading of an SCN on the Common Portal was insufficient unless receipt was acknowledged or a reply was filed. Where portal-only service was followed by an ex parte order in the absence of a reply, the proceedings were to be restored to the stage of issuance of the SCN, with liberty to file a reply within four weeks.
The Court had also held that where an order-in-original was passed after contest but served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would not be triggered and the aggrieved assessee would have the right to file an appeal within four weeks.
Further, where an appeal against such an order had been dismissed on limitation grounds, the appellate order was to be set aside and the appeal restored to its original number for decision on merits. Where an ex parte adjudication order and subsequent appellate order had resulted from portal-only service of the SCN, both orders were to be set aside and proceedings restored to the stage of issuance of the SCN.
Revenue’s Submission on Finance Act, 2022
Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Court, while deciding Luxmi Traders, had not been apprised of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022.
The provision relied upon was Section 115, which states that the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), G.S.R. 58(E), dated 23rd January, 2018, issued under Section 146 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, would stand amended retrospectively in the manner specified in the Fifth Schedule.
The provision further states that, for that purpose, the Central Government would have and would be deemed to have had the power to amend the notification retrospectively as if it had such power under Section 146 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act.
The Finance Act, 2022 amendment referred to in the judgment substituted the relevant wording in the notification so that the functions covered by the notification extended to all functions provided under the CGST Rules, subject to the stated exception.
Fifth Schedule and Retrospective Amendment
The Fifth Schedule reproduced in the judgment identifies G.S.R. 58(E), dated 23rd January, 2018, and specifies the amendment to paragraph 1 of that notification. The amended wording includes “furnishing of returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax and save as otherwise provided in the notification number G.S.R. 925(E), dated the 13th December, 2019, all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules”.
The date of effect of the amendment specified in the Fifth Schedule is 22nd June, 2017.
Clarification in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd.
The Court then referred to its subsequent decision in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.15601 of 2026, decided on 23.07.2026.
Revenue’s Contention
In that matter, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the notification dated 23.01.2018 had been retrospectively amended so that all functions provided under the CGST Rules, 2017 could also be performed on the Common Portal.
Petitioner’s Submissions
Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed that contention and submitted that the CGST Rules did not permit uploading of an SCN or order on the Common Portal for the purpose of service. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 was relied upon as the provision concerning electronic communication of orders and related documents.
It was also submitted that the notification issued by the Government specifically identified the Common Portal in terms of Section 146 of the CGST Act and that, unless the Common Portal was expressly specified by notification for effecting service of an SCN or order, the expression “uploading” in Rule 145(5) would not by itself legitimise service of the SCN or order upon an assessee.
The petitioner further pointed out that the expression “Common Portal” was used in numerous provisions of the CGST Rules for purposes including registration, returns and registers, payment, assessment, refund, advance ruling, appeal, recovery, e-way bills and e-invoicing, but none of those provisions referred to the Common Portal for service of an SCN or order.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning
In The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., the Court found substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It referred to its earlier observations in Luxmi Traders concerning the process by which an order was sought to be served and its consequences for the assessee.
The Court stated that it was not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed in Luxmi Traders merely on account of the reference to the provisions of the Act of 2022.
The judgment records that, in the matter before it, the order had been uploaded only on the Common Portal and the petitioner had specifically stated that, being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge thereof. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders.
Decision in the Present Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the issue raised in the present case was squarely covered by Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd..
The instant writ petition was therefore disposed of in the same terms as those judgments.
The Court further directed that all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, would also stand disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others — Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-27139-2025.
- The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others — Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-15601-2026, decided on 23.07.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Short question that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether uploading of a notice as well as the order-in-original in the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, on the common portal, being gst.gov.in amounts to proper service of it, on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017?
2. The issue raised in the present case is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. The said judgment has been further clarified by this Court in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 23.07.2026.
3. This Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (supra), has observed as under:-
“58. With reference to the above provision, it is submitted on behalf of the revenue that service of notice by uploading it on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing reply etc. In such cases, the SCN cannot be said to have not been served upon the assessee.
59. The contention advanced on behalf of the revenue, in this regard, merits consideration. In cases where the SCN has been responded to by the person concerned, and after contest, the order-in-original is passed by the competent authority, the order-in-original cannot be challenged merely due to defect in service of SCN/order on the taxpayer by uploading it on the Common Portal.
60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:-
(i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.
(ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today where after, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.
(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits.
(v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, where after, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”
4. Learned counsel for the revenue, however, submits that while deciding Luxmi Traders (supra), this Court was not apprised of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, whereby Section 115 was introduced which provides as under:-
“115. (1) The notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number G.S.R 58(E), dated the 23rd January, 2018, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Council, under Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner specified in column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, on and from the date specified in column (3) of that Schedule.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to amend the notification referred to in the said sub-section with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to amend the said notification under section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, retrospectively, at all material times.”
5. The Schedule referred to in Section 115 reads as under:-
“THE FIFTH SCHEDULE
{See sectin 115(1)}
| Notification number and date | Amendment | Date of effect of amendment |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) |
| G.S.R. 58(E), dated the 23rd January, 2018 {No. 349/58/2017-GST (Pt), dated 23rd January, 2018} | In the said notification, in paragraph 1, for the words “furnishing of returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax”, the following shall be substituted namely:—
“furnishing of returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax and save as otherwise provided in the notification number G.S.R. 925(E), dated the 13th December, 2019, all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules,” |
22nd June, 2017 |
6. The view taken by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) was further clarified in The Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.15601 of 2026, decided on 23.07.2026, wherein it was held as under:-
“6. With reference to the aforesaid amendment, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the notification issued on 23.01.2018 stood amended retrospectively in the manner specified in Column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, whereby all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, the ‘Rules of 2017’), could also be performed on the Common Portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue on the ground that the Rules of 2017 nowhere permit the uploading of the SCN/Order on the Common Portal, i.e., gst.gov.in. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only provision that could be pressed into service, where under the orders, etc., are required to be communicated electronically. It is also pointed out that this Court, in Luxmi Traders (supra), has taken note of this aspect and thereafter observed that the orders cannot be treated as having been communicated electronically, since the e-mail does not contain the SCN/order itself.
8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further submitted that the notification issued by the Government specifically identifies the Common Portal in terms of Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and unless the Common Portal is expressly specified by way of a notification for effecting service of the SCN/order, the expression “uploading” occurring in Rule 145(5) of the Rules of 2017 would not, ipso facto, legitimize the service of the SCN/order upon an assessee.
9. It is also pointed out that expression ‘Common Portal’ has been used several times for different purposes in the Rules of
Registration:- 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 12, 14, 14A, 17, 19, 20, 21A, 23, 24, 83B
Returns/Registers:-59, 60, 61, 61A, 62, 63, 65, 80, 81, 85, 86, 88C, 88D, 117,120A, 140
Payment:- 87, 142(2), 142(2B)
Assessment:- 98
Refund:- 89, 90, 95, 95B, 96
Advance Ruling:- 104
Appeal:- 108, 110, 111
Recovery:- 142B
E-way bill:- 138, 138A, 138D,
E-invoicing:- 48
10. None of the provisions of the Rules of 2017 refers to Common Portal for the purpose of service of SCN/order. As indicated above, the Rules explicitly confine the utility of the Common Portal to limited functions, such as registration, filing of returns, payment of tax etc., rather than expanding its scope to substitute formal service of SCN/order.
11. We find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise, we have already observed in Luxmi Traders (supra) that the complex process by which the order is sought to be served upon the petitioner/assessee cannot receive the approval of law, particularly when it leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee. We are, therefore, not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed in Luxmi Traders (supra) merely on account of the reference to the provisions of the Act of 2022, noticed above.
12. In the present case as well, the order was uploaded only on the Common Portal, and the petitioner has specifically stated that being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge thereof.
13. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders (supra).
14. However, in the event, the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the amount towards the statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing the appeal, the appeal itself shall be heard and decided on merits. Any recovery effected from the petitioner shall abide by the final adjudication of the matter in the competent proceedings. Any attachment of petitioner’s bank account, pursuant to the order under challenge, shall stand revoked.”
7. As the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.
8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
