Murghai Sales vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Murghai Sales, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The petitioner contended that uploading these documents on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The revenue argued that if the concerned person had knowledge of the uploaded documents and contested the proceedings, service could not be discarded. The case hinges on the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the modes of service of notices and orders.

Held

The Court held that service of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) upon the petitioner/assessee cannot be deemed sufficient merely by its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. If an SCN is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal and an ex parte order-in-original is passed in the absence of a reply, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of the SCN. The petitioner would then be at liberty to file a reply within four weeks, after which the Department must proceed after affording a hearing. In cases where the order-in-original was passed after contest and served only by uploading on the portal, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would not be triggered, and the aggrieved assessee would have the right to file an appeal within four weeks. If appeals against such orders were dismissed for limitation, those orders would be set aside, and the appeals restored for hearing on merits. The Court's decision was based on its prior ruling in CWP-27139-2025 titled Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original on the common GST portal under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab amounts to proper service of such documents on the petitioner, in terms of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner likely argued that mere uploading on the portal is insufficient for proper service, especially if actual receipt or acknowledgment is absent, and that this method does not satisfy the statutory requirements for service. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that if the assessee had knowledge of the uploaded notice and order and participated in the proceedings by filing a reply or contesting the matter, then the service by uploading on the common portal should be considered valid and cannot be discarded. They argued that in such scenarios, the SCN cannot be deemed not served.