Pardeep Mittal Prop Ms Jay Cee Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Pardeep Mittal, proprietor of M/s Jay Cee Industries, 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 this method of service does not constitute proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, especially as he claims to be illiterate and unaware of the uploaded documents. The revenue argued that amendments, particularly Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, retrospectively validated such uploads as proper service. The case was considered in light of previous judgments by the same High Court 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 GST portal does not, by itself, constitute proper service on the petitioner. The Court reiterated its findings from Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., stating that the Rules of 2017 do not explicitly provide for service of SCNs/orders through the common portal, and its utility is limited to specific functions. The Court found the petitioner's submission that the complex process of service by uploading cannot receive the approval of law, particularly when it leads to serious civil consequences, to be substantial. The Court was not persuaded to take a different view based on the reference to the provisions of the Act of 2022. The Court noted that in this case, the order was uploaded only on the common portal, and the petitioner claimed illiteracy and lack of knowledge. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders. The Court directed that if the petitioner had deposited 10% of the amount towards statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing the appeal, the appeal would be heard and decided 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 GST portal amounts to 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 uploading on the common portal does not constitute proper service, especially when the assessee is illiterate and unaware of such uploads. They relied on the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., emphasizing that the Rules of 2017 do not expressly permit service of SCN/orders via the common portal, and its use is confined to specific functions like registration and returns. They contended that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, does not legitimize service through mere uploading without acknowledgment or reply. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the introduction of Section 115 by the Finance Act, 2022, retrospectively amended the relevant notification, allowing all functions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal, thereby validating service through uploads. They argued that this amendment was not considered in the Luxmi Traders judgment.