Ms Grl Engineers Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s GRL Engineers Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order-in-original. The core issue revolved around the validity of service of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the subsequent order, which were allegedly only uploaded on the GST Common 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, on the other hand, argued that uploading on the portal, particularly after the introduction of Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, and amendments to the relevant notification, constituted valid service, especially if the assessee had contested the proceedings. This case was linked to previous judgments by the same court in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd.

Held

The Court held that service of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) upon the petitioner/assessee cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. The Court reiterated its previous findings in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., finding substance in the petitioner's submissions. It was observed that the complex process of serving orders by merely uploading them on the portal, especially when leading to serious civil consequences, cannot receive the approval of law. The Court was not persuaded to take a different view based on the reference to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2022. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the previous judgments. If the petitioner had deposited 10% of the amount towards statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing an appeal, the appeal would be heard and decided on merits. Any recovery 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 order on the GST Common Portal, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, amounts to proper service on the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that uploading on the Common Portal does not constitute proper service. They relied on the court's previous observations in Luxmi Traders, where it was held that orders uploaded on the portal without acknowledgment or a reply filed by the assessee could not be deemed sufficient service. They further contended that the Rules of 2017, specifically Rule 142, only permit communication electronically and do not expressly authorize the use of the Common Portal for serving SCNs/orders. They highlighted that the Common Portal is used for various functions but not explicitly for service of SCNs/orders, and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, does not alter this position. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that uploading on the Common Portal constitutes proper service, especially if the assessee has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing a reply. They argued that the judgment in Luxmi Traders did not consider the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, specifically Section 115, which retrospectively amended the notification to include all functions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to be performed on the Common Portal.