Ivanya Alloys vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ivanya Alloys, challenged an order-in-original passed by the revenue authorities. The core of the dispute was whether uploading a notice and order on the common GST portal, www.gst.gov.in, constituted proper service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed to be illiterate and unaware of the uploaded notice. This case was linked to previous judgments by the same High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others, which dealt with similar issues of service of notices and orders via the GST portal.
Held
The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its previous judgments in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. It found substance in the petitioner's submissions that the CGST Rules, 2017, do not explicitly refer to the common portal for the purpose of service of SCN/order, and that the portal's utility is confined to specific functions like registration and returns. The Court was not persuaded to take a different view based on the amendment introduced by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, as it found the complex process of service via uploading, leading to serious civil consequences, could not receive legal approval. The Court reiterated that service of SCN upon an assessee cannot be deemed sufficient merely by uploading it on the common portal unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. In cases where the order-in-original was passed after contest and served only by uploading, the period of limitation for appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee would have the right to file an appeal within four weeks. If the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the statutory pre-deposit, the appeal would be heard and decided on merits. Any recovery or attachment would abide by the final adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading a notice and order on the common GST portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, especially when the recipient claims illiteracy and lack of knowledge? (Question of law) 2. Whether the amendment introduced by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, which retrospectively amended a notification under Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017, to include all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, on the common portal, legitimizes the service of SCN/order by uploading it on the portal, overriding previous judgments? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that uploading on the portal is not proper service, especially for an illiterate person, and that the CGST Rules, 2017, do not expressly permit service of SCN/order via the common portal. They relied on the court's previous findings in Luxmi Traders and Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. that the portal's utility is limited to specific functions and does not substitute formal service. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the amendment by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, retrospectively allowed all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal, thereby validating service by uploading. They argued that the court was not apprised of this amendment when deciding Luxmi Traders.
Sections Cited
Section 169, Section 146, Section 115, Rule 142, Rule 145(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
and Others. The said judgment 15601-2026, The Amar Coopera ers, decided on 23.07.2026. 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (sup as to View gov.in with and uxmi t has ative pra), RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.05 15:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-23989-2026 (O&M) [2]
“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.
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.
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 whereafter, 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 weeksfrom 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 theAppellate Court shall be set RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.05 15:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-23989-2026 (O&M) [3]
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, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”
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.”
The Schedule referred to in Section 115 reads as under:-
“THE FIFTH SCHEDULE {See section 115(1)} RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.05 15:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-23989-2026 (O&M) [4]
Notification number and date Amendment Date of effect of amendment (1) (2) (3) G.S.R. 58(E), dated the 23rd January, 2018 {No.349/58/201 7-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
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.
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., www.gst.gov.in. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only provision that could be pressed into service, whereunder the orders, etc., are required to be communicated electronically. It is RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.05 15:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-23989-2026 (O&M) [5]
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.
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.
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
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.
We find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise, we have already observed in Luxmi RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.05 15:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-23989-2026 (O&M) [6]
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.
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.
In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders (supra).
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.”
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.
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(ROHIT KAPOOR)
JUDGE 04.08.2026 rajesh
Whether speaking/reasoned?
: Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?
: Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.08.05 15:27 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.