Ms Shri Lc Polymers Faridabad vs. Excise And Taxation Officer And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri LC Polymers, filed a writ petition challenging the service of an order-in-original by uploading it on the common GST portal. The petitioner contended that this method of service, without actual acknowledgment or reply, did not constitute proper service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue argued that uploading on the common portal, especially when the assessee has knowledge and contests proceedings, should be considered valid service. The case hinges on whether uploading a notice and order on the GST portal is sufficient service, particularly when the assessee claims illiteracy and lack of knowledge.

Held

The Court held that uploading a notice and order-in-original on the common portal does not, by itself, constitute proper service on the petitioner, especially when the petitioner claims illiteracy and lack of knowledge. The Court reaffirmed its previous decisions in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., stating that service by uploading is insufficient unless 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 use of the common portal for serving SCNs/orders. The retrospective amendment by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, did not persuade the Court to alter its view. The Court concluded that the complex process of service by uploading, leading to serious civil consequences, cannot receive the approval of law. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the previous judgments. 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 bank account attachments 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 on the petitioner in view of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that uploading on the common portal alone is not sufficient service, especially when the assessee is illiterate and has no knowledge of the uploaded document. They relied on the court's previous judgments in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which held that service by uploading is insufficient without acknowledgment or reply. They also contended that the Rules of 2017 do not expressly permit the use of the common portal for serving SCNs/orders, and the portal's utility is limited to specific functions like registration and returns. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that uploading on the common portal should be considered valid service if the assessee has knowledge of it and contests the proceedings. They also pointed to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, introducing Section 115, which retrospectively amended a notification to include all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, to be performed on the common portal.