Balaji International vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balaji International, 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 State of Haryana and others were the respondents. The core of the dispute revolved around whether such electronic uploading equated to valid service of statutory notices and orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

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. Where 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 further 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 on limitation, the appellate orders would be set aside, and the appeals restored for hearing on merits. The Court relied on its previous judgment in CWP-27139-2025 titled Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a notice and an order-in-original on the common GST portal ('View Additional Notices and Orders' tab) amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that mere uploading on the portal does not constitute proper service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that if the person concerned has knowledge of the uploaded notice and contests the proceedings by filing a reply, the notice cannot be deemed as not served. They argued that in cases where the SCN has been responded to and an order-in-original passed after contest, the order cannot be challenged solely on the ground of defective service by uploading on the portal.