Dk Trading Co vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioner, D.K. Trading Co., 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 tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ did not constitute proper service. The respondents were the Union Territory of Chandigarh and others. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the mode 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 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 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 shall proceed further after affording a hearing. In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest and served only by uploading on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would not be triggered, and the 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 would be restored for hearing on merits. The Court's reasoning was based on its prior decision 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 under the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ amounts to proper service of the same on the petitioner, in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that mere uploading of documents on the portal does not constitute proper service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. They relied on the principles laid down in previous judgments by the High Court. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that service of notice by uploading it on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing a reply. In such cases, the show cause notice (SCN) cannot be said to have not been served upon the assessee. They argued that if the SCN has been responded to and the order-in-original is passed after contest, the order cannot be challenged merely due to a defect in service by uploading on the portal.