Punjab & Haryana High Court: GST Notice Service by Portal Upload Alone Not Sufficient Without Acknowledgement or Reply

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that mere uploading of a show cause notice (SCN) or order-in-original on the GST common portal does not constitute valid service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, unless the assessee acknowledges receipt or files a reply. This position was reiterated in the judgment delivered on 28 July 2026 in Saraswati Wood Products v. Union of India and Ors.

Background and Core Issue

The central question before the Court was whether uploading a notice and order-in-original in the ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ tab on the GST portal amounts to proper service on the petitioner, as required by the CGST Act. The petitioner challenged the validity of such service, contending lack of knowledge and opportunity to respond.

Reference to Previous Judgments

The Court noted that this issue had already been settled in its earlier decision in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (CWP-27139-2025), which was further clarified in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana (CWP-15601-2026, decided on 23 July 2026). In Luxmi Traders, the Court held that:

• Service of SCN cannot be deemed sufficient merely by uploading on the portal unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.
• If an ex parte order is passed without a reply from the assessee, proceedings must be restored to the SCN stage, allowing the assessee to file a reply within four weeks.
• Where an order-in-original is passed after contest but served only by portal upload, the limitation period for appeal does not begin, and the assessee may file an appeal within four weeks.
• If appeals are dismissed for limitation where service was only by portal upload, such appeals must be restored and heard on merits.
• Where both adjudication and appeal orders are passed ex parte and dismissed for delay, both orders are set aside and proceedings restored to the SCN stage.

Revenue’s Argument and Court’s Analysis

The revenue argued that the Finance Act, 2022, by introducing Section 115 and amending the relevant notification retrospectively, permitted all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal. However, the Court, referring to its clarification in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., found that the Rules do not specifically provide for service of SCN or orders via portal upload. The Court observed that the use of the common portal in the Rules is limited to functions such as registration, returns, and payments, and does not extend to formal service of notices or orders.

The Court further noted that the process of serving orders solely by portal upload, especially when it leads to serious civil consequences, cannot be approved in law. The Court was not persuaded to depart from its earlier view in Luxmi Traders merely due to the retrospective amendment cited by the revenue.

Final Ruling and Directions

Applying the settled law from Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., the High Court disposed of the present writ petition in the same terms. Specifically, where the order was uploaded only on the common portal and the petitioner claimed lack of knowledge, the proceedings are to be restored to the stage of issuance of SCN, with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks. If a statutory pre-deposit has already been made for appeal, the appeal is to be heard on merits, and any recovery or bank account attachment is to abide by the final adjudication.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

Legal Takeaway

This decision reinforces that, under the CGST Act and Rules, uploading notices or orders on the GST portal alone does not amount to valid service unless the assessee acknowledges receipt or responds. The High Court’s consistent approach ensures that assessees are not deprived of their right to contest proceedings due to procedural deficiencies in service, and that limitation periods for appeals are not triggered by mere portal uploads without proper communication.