M/S Panchkula Golf Club vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Panchkul Golf Club, challenged the validity of service of a notice and order-in-original under the GST regime. The petitioner contended that uploading the notice on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) did not constitute proper service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, especially when the petitioner had not filed a reply or acknowledged receipt. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, argued that if the assessee had knowledge of the notice and contested the proceedings by filing a reply, the service should be considered proper. The case was filed as a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Held

The Court held that service of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) upon an assessee cannot be deemed sufficient solely on the basis of its uploading on the Common Portal unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. If an SCN is served only by uploading on the portal and an ex parte order-in-original is passed without a reply, the proceedings should be restored to the stage of SCN issuance. The petitioner would then have four weeks to file a reply, after which the Department must proceed after affording a hearing. In cases where the order-in-original was passed after contest but served only by uploading, the limitation period for filing an appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee would have four weeks to file an appeal. If appeals were dismissed on limitation grounds for such service, those orders would be set aside, and the appeals restored. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh.

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 under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly when the petitioner has not filed a reply or acknowledged receipt. The petitioner argued that mere uploading on the portal is insufficient for valid service, as it does not guarantee the assessee's knowledge of the communication. The revenue contended that if the assessee has knowledge of the notice and contests the proceedings by filing a reply, the service should be deemed proper, citing the precedent of Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Court had to decide on the interpretation of 'service' in the context of electronic communication under the GST Act.