M/S Prince Products INDIA vs. State Of Punjab And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Prince Products India, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The respondents are the State of Punjab and others. The core of the dispute revolves around whether uploading these documents on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims to be illiterate and unaware of the uploaded documents. This issue has been previously addressed by the High Court in related cases, notably 'Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others' and 'The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others'. The revenue contended that amendments, specifically Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, retroactively validated such portal uploads.
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. The Court relied on its previous judgments in 'Luxmi Traders' and 'The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd.'. It found substance in the petitioner's submission that the Rules of 2017 do not explicitly permit the Common Portal for service of SCN/order, confining its utility to specific functions. The Court was not persuaded by the revenue's argument regarding Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, finding that it did not alter the principle established in prior rulings. The Court reiterated that a complex process of service, especially when it leads to serious civil consequences and the assessee claims no knowledge (as in this case, due to illiteracy), cannot be approved. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the 'Luxmi Traders' judgment. If the petitioner had deposited 10% of the statutory pre-deposit, their appeal would be heard on merits. Any recovery would abide by the final adjudication, and any bank account attachment would be revoked.
Key Issues
1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in light of 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 for service. Rule 142 is the only relevant provision for electronic communication, and it requires more than just uploading. The petitioner also highlighted that the 'Common Portal' is used for specific functions like registration and returns, not for substituting formal service of SCN/order. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed to be illiterate and had no knowledge of the uploaded documents. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that Section 115, introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, amended the notification dated 23.01.2018 retrospectively, allowing all functions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to be performed on the Common Portal, thus validating portal uploads as service.
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, 2026.08.01 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-12182-2025 (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) 27.07.2026 JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No 2026.08.01 11:35 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.