Amar Coop LC Society Ltd Vs State of Haryana And Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a writ petition seeking quashing of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 19.04.2024, the consequential Order-in-Original dated 20.06.2025, the rectification order dated 11.12.2025, and the appellate order dated 29.01.2026 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal as time-barred.
According to the petitioner, no reply was filed to the SCN, resulting in an ex parte Order-in-Original. The petitioner submitted that he was an illiterate person, unaware of the procedure on the GST Portal, and had engaged a representative who failed to submit any reply. It was also asserted that the petitioner was unaware that the case had been selected for scrutiny or that any demand had been raised.
The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, contending that mere uploading of the SCN and order on the Common Portal does not constitute valid service. It was submitted that the present matter should be disposed of in terms of the limited relief granted in Luxmi Traders, where the matter was directed to be decided after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Revenue argued that while deciding Luxmi Traders, the Court had not been informed of the amendment introduced by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022. It was submitted that Section 115 retrospectively amended the notification dated 23.01.2018 issued 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. Referring to the Fifth Schedule, the Revenue contended that, with retrospective effect, all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could also be performed on the Common Portal (gst.gov.in). On that basis, it was argued that uploading the SCN and orders on the Common Portal constituted valid service.
The petitioner opposed this contention by submitting that the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 do not permit service of an SCN or order merely by uploading it on the Common Portal. It was argued that Rule 142 only requires orders and related communications to be communicated electronically, and that Luxmi Traders had already considered this aspect and held that communication could not be treated as complete where the email itself did not contain the SCN or order.
The petitioner further contended that although the Government notification identified the Common Portal under Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, no notification specifically authorised the Common Portal as the mode for effecting service of SCNs or orders. It was also submitted that the expression “Common Portal” is used throughout the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 for specified functions such as registration, returns, payment, assessment, refund, advance ruling, appeals, recovery, e-way bills, and e-invoicing, but none of those provisions designates the Common Portal as the prescribed mode for service of SCNs or orders.
The High Court found substance in the petitioner’s submissions. It observed that in Luxmi Traders it had already held that the complex process adopted for serving the order could not receive legal approval, particularly where it resulted in serious civil consequences for the assessee. The Court was not persuaded to depart from the view taken in Luxmi Traders merely because of the reference to Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022.
The Court noted that in the present case also the order had been uploaded only on the Common Portal and that the petitioner had specifically asserted that, being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge of the same.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the decision in Luxmi Traders. The Court further directed that, if the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed amount towards the statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal, the appeal should be heard and decided on merits. Any recovery already effected would remain subject to the final adjudication of the competent proceedings, and any attachment of the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the impugned order would stand revoked. The Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 19.04.2024 issued by respondent No.3 and its consequential orders dated 20.06.2025 i.e., order-in-original and rectification order dated 11.12.2025. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 29.01.2026 by the Appellate Authority being time barred.
2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the SCN, and an ex parte Order-in-Original has been passed. The appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. In the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner has asserted that he is an illiterate person who was not aware of the procedure to be followed on the GST Portal and had engaged a representative who failed to file any reply. The petitioner has also asserted in the appeal that he was not aware that the case had been selected for scrutiny or that any demand had been raised.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Luxmi Traders vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, CWP No.27139 of 2025, to contend that service of notice merely by uploading it on the Common Portal does not amount to valid service of the SCN/order. She, therefore, submits that the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the limited relief granted by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra), whereby, in such circumstances, the matter is to be decided after affording an 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 (for short, ‘Act of 2022’), whereby Section 115 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 subsection 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, 2017. | 22nd June, 2017 |
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., 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, e., www.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 2017, which are as follows:-
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.
15. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
