Neelkanth Products vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Neelkanth Products, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original solely by uploading them on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in). The petitioner contended that this method of service did not constitute proper service, especially as they claimed to be illiterate and unaware of the uploaded documents. The revenue argued that amendments to Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, and related notifications retrospectively allowed for such service through the common portal. 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 assessee. The Court found substance in the petitioner's submissions that the Rules of 2017 do not explicitly permit service of SCNs/orders through uploading on the common portal, and that the portal's utility is confined to specific functions like registration and filing returns. The Court reiterated its previous findings in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., stating that the complex process of service by uploading, especially when it leads to serious civil consequences and the assessee claims lack of knowledge (as in this case, due to alleged illiteracy), cannot be approved by law. The Court was not persuaded to take a different view based on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2022. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the Luxmi Traders judgment. If the petitioner had deposited 10% of the statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing an appeal, the 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 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 argued that the Rules of 2017 do not permit the uploading of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) or orders on the common portal for service. They contended that Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only relevant provision for electronic communication, and it does not validate service by mere uploading. They further argued that the "Common Portal" is used for specific functions like registration and returns, not for substituting formal service of SCNs/orders, and that the "uploading" in Rule 145(5) does not legitimize service without express notification. They also highlighted that the previous judgment in Luxmi Traders noted that e-mails containing only links, not the SCN/order itself, were insufficient. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, introduced amendments to Notification G.S.R. 58(E) dated 23rd January, 2018, retrospectively. This amendment, according to the revenue, allowed all functions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to be performed on the Common Portal, including service of SCNs and orders. They argued that this amendment validated service by uploading on the portal.