Gorki Contractors and Engineers Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Portal upload alone is no service under GST – Delhi HC disposes 48 writ petitions on Section 168A Notifications and preserves Luxmi Traders remedies for Assessees
Summary: The Delhi High Court disposed of a batch of forty-eight writ petitions, with Gorki Contractors and Engineers Vs Union of India & Ors. as the first matter, concerning challenges connected with Notification No. 09/2023 dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Central Government and dated 22.06.2023 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, and Notification No. 56/2023 dated 28.12.2023 issued by the Central Government and dated 11.07.2024 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The parties admitted that the validity/correctness of these Notifications was pending consideration before the Supreme Court and that they would remain bound by the Supreme Court’s ultimate judgment. The Delhi High Court then considered the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors., (2026) 44 Centax 371 (P&H), which dealt with service of notices and orders by uploading them on the GST Common Portal. In Luxmi Traders, it was held, inter alia, that service of an SCN could not be deemed sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the Common Portal unless receipt was acknowledged or a reply was filed. Where an SCN was served only through portal upload and an ex parte order followed without a reply, proceedings were to stand restored to the SCN stage. Where an order-in-original passed after contest was served only by portal upload, the limitation period for appeal would not be triggered. The judgment also provided relief where appeals had been dismissed on limitation on account of portal-only service. The respondents before the Delhi High Court attempted to distinguish Luxmi Traders but were unable to do so. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel, the Delhi High Court disposed of all forty-eight writ petitions and pending applications, granting the petitioners liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to them in terms of paragraph 60 of Luxmi Traders. The Court did not itself decide the validity/correctness of the challenged Notifications, which remained pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
