Paramhans Enterprises Through Its Sole Proprietor Balraj Sharma vs. State Of Haryana Through Its Secretary Excise And Taxation Department

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Paramhan Enterprises, through its Sole Proprietor Balraj Sharma, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged the validity of an order-in-original passed by the revenue authorities. The core of the dispute revolved around the proper service of notices and orders, specifically whether uploading them on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) constituted proper service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, especially when the petitioner claimed non-receipt and contested the proceedings. The tax period is not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of an order-in-original, which the petitioner is challenging.

Held

The Court held that service of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) upon the petitioner/assessee cannot be deemed sufficient solely on account 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 it on the Common Portal and an ex-parte order is passed in the absence of a reply, the proceedings would 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 an opportunity of hearing. In cases where the order-in-original was passed after contest but served only by uploading on the portal, the limitation period for filing an appeal would not be triggered, and the aggrieved assessee would have four weeks from the date of the judgment to file an appeal. If appeals were dismissed on limitation grounds for orders served only via portal upload, those appellate orders would be set aside, and the appeals restored for decision on merits. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh. The writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the Luxmi Traders judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice or order on the common portal (www.gst.gov.in) under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ amounts to proper service of such notice or order on the petitioner in view of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner likely argued that mere uploading on the portal does not constitute proper service, especially if they did not receive actual notice or opportunity to respond, leading to an ex-parte order. They would rely on principles of natural justice and the need for effective communication. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that service by uploading on the common portal is valid, particularly if the assessee has knowledge of it and contests the proceedings by filing a reply or appearing. They argued that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings after the notice was uploaded, the service should be deemed sufficient, and the order-in-original cannot be challenged solely on the ground of defective service via the portal. The revenue's argument is based on the interpretation of Section 169 and the precedent set in Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh.