Mahavir Prasad Punia vs. Excise And Taxation Officer And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Mahavir Prasad Punia, 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 did not constitute proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), especially as he claimed to be illiterate and unaware of the uploaded documents. The Excise and Taxation Officer and others were the respondents. 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. The Court found substance in the petitioner's submissions, reiterating the view taken in Luxmi Traders. It was observed that the complex process of service by mere uploading cannot receive legal approval, especially when it leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee. The Court was not persuaded to alter its previous stance based on the reference to Section 115 of the Act of 2022. The Court noted that in the present case, 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. 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 made from the petitioner 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 constitutes proper service on the petitioner under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that uploading on the common portal, especially for an illiterate person with no knowledge of the upload, does not amount to proper service. They relied on the principles laid down in Luxmi Traders, asserting that the Rules of 2017 do not permit uploading of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) or orders on the common portal for service, and that Rule 142 is the only relevant provision for electronic communication, which was not followed adequately. They also contended that the expression 'Common Portal' is used for various purposes in the Rules, and its use for service of SCN/order requires express notification. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the service by uploading on the common portal should be considered valid, particularly in light of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, which inserted Section 115. This section, they argued, retrospectively amended Notification G.S.R 58(E) dated 23rd January, 2018, to include all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal, thereby legitimizing such uploads for service.