M/S Sach Steels vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S SACH STEELS, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original solely through uploading on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in). The petitioner contended that as an illiterate person, they had no knowledge of these uploads. The respondents, the State of Punjab and others, argued that amendments to Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, and the retrospective amendment of Notification G.S.R. 58(E) dated 23rd January, 2018, by the Fifth Schedule, allowed for all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal, including service of notices and orders. The court had previously dealt with similar issues in CWP-27139-2025 (Luxmi Traders) and CWP-15601-2026 (The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd.).
Held
The Court held that uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal does not, by itself, constitute proper service, especially when the petitioner claims illiteracy and lack of knowledge. The Court found substance in the petitioner's submissions that the Rules of 2017 do not explicitly permit the use of the Common Portal for service of SCN/order, confining its utility to specific functions like registration and returns. The Court reiterated its stance from Luxmi Traders, stating that the complex process of service via uploading, which leads to serious civil consequences, cannot receive legal approval. The amendment introduced by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, and the retrospective amendment of Notification G.S.R. 58(E) did not persuade the Court to alter its previous view. The Court concluded that the order was uploaded only on the Common Portal, and the petitioner, being illiterate, had no knowledge of it. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders. If the petitioner had deposited 10% of the statutory pre-deposit, the appeal would be heard on merits. Any recovery would abide by the final adjudication, and any attachment of the petitioner's bank account would stand revoked.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) constitutes proper service on the petitioner under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Rules of 2017 do not permit uploading of SCN/Order on the common portal. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only relevant provision for electronic communication, and it was previously held in Luxmi Traders that e-mails without the SCN/order itself do not constitute valid communication. The petitioner also contended that the expression 'Common Portal' is used for various specific purposes in the Rules of 2017, none of which include the service of SCN/order, and that uploading does not ipso facto legitimize service. The petitioner further stated they are illiterate and had no knowledge of the uploads. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, introduced amendments to Notification G.S.R. 58(E) retrospectively, allowing all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal, thereby validating service by uploading. They argued that the judgment in Luxmi Traders was not aware of this amendment.
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
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 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, 2026.08.05 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-13021-2026(O&M)
-7- 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) 03.08.2026 JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No 2026.08.05 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
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.