Hunjan Fastners vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Hunjan Fasteners, filed a writ petition challenging the service of an order-in-original, which was allegedly uploaded on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) without proper service. The petitioner contended that as an illiterate person, they had no knowledge of the uploaded order. The revenue argued that uploading on the common portal constitutes proper service, especially if the assessee has knowledge and contests proceedings. This issue was previously addressed by the High Court in 'Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh' and 'The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others'. The revenue also raised the point of Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, which retrospectively amended a notification to include more functions on the common portal.

Held

The Court held that uploading an SCN or order on the Common Portal alone does not constitute sufficient service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. The Court found substance in the petitioner's submissions, reaffirming its earlier view in 'Luxmi Traders'. The Court noted that the complex process of service by uploading on the portal cannot receive legal approval, especially when it leads to serious civil consequences. The amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, did not persuade the Court to alter its previous decision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of 'Luxmi Traders'. 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 order-in-original on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service 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 the uploading of SCN/Order on the Common Portal for service. Rule 142 is the only relevant provision for electronic communication, and it requires explicit communication. 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. They further emphasized that as an illiterate person, they had no knowledge of the uploaded order. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that service by uploading on the common portal cannot be discarded if the person concerned has knowledge and contests the proceedings. They argued that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, introducing Section 115, retrospectively amended the notification to include all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, on the Common Portal, thereby legitimizing such service.