Boxing Federation Of INDIA vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, an illiterate individual, challenges an order-in-original passed by the revenue authorities. The primary contention is that the order was served solely by uploading it to the common portal (www.gst.gov.in), and the petitioner, due to illiteracy, had no knowledge of this communication. The petitioner argues that this method of service does not constitute proper service under the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Rules framed thereunder. The revenue, on the other hand, relies on Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, which introduced amendments to Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017, retrospectively, to argue that the common portal can be used for all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, including service of notices and orders. This case is linked to previous judgments by the same court in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd.
Held
The Court held that uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or order on the common portal alone does not constitute sufficient service on the petitioner/assessee unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. The Court found substance in the petitioner's submissions that the Rules of 2017 do not explicitly permit the uploading of SCNs/orders on the common portal for service, and the portal's utility is confined to specific functions like registration and filing returns, not substituting formal service. The Court was not persuaded to take a different view from its previous judgments in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., merely on account of the reference to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2022. The Court reiterated that the complex process of serving orders by merely uploading them on the common portal cannot receive legal approval, especially when it leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee. The Court noted the petitioner's specific statement of being illiterate and having no knowledge of the uploaded order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the Luxmi Traders judgment. The Court also provided directions for cases where the petitioner had deposited 10% of the amount towards statutory pre-deposit, stating that the appeal would be heard and decided on merits, and any recovery or attachment would abide by the final adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading a notice or order on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the Rules of 2017 do not permit the uploading of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) or orders on the common portal for service. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only relevant provision for electronic communication, and it requires more than just uploading. The petitioner argues that the common portal's utility is limited to specific functions like registration and filing returns, not for substituting formal service of SCNs/orders. They also highlight that the judgment in Luxmi Traders noted that orders cannot be treated as communicated electronically if the email does not contain the SCN/order itself. The petitioner further argues that the expression 'Common Portal' is used for various purposes in the Rules, but none explicitly for service of SCN/order. The petitioner also emphasizes their illiteracy, stating they had no knowledge of the uploaded order. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argues that Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, which amended Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017, retrospectively, allows for all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal, including the service of notices and orders. They contend that where an SCN has been responded to and an order-in-original passed after contest, the order cannot be challenged solely due to a defect in service by uploading on the common portal.
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 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-21994-2025 (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 aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits. RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-21994-2025 (O&M) [3]
(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)} Notification number and date Amendment Date of effect of amendment RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-21994-2025 (O&M) [4]
(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 also pointed out that this Court, in Luxmi Traders (supra), has taken note of this aspect and thereafter observed that the orders RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-21994-2025 (O&M) [5]
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 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 RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CWP-21994-2025 (O&M) [6]
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 27.07.2026 rajesh
Whether speaking/reasoned?
: Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?
: Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 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.