M/S Karma Enterprises vs. Joint Excise And Taxation Commissioner And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/S KARMA ENTERPRISES, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The core of the dispute revolves around whether uploading these documents on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab constitutes proper service on the petitioner, as per Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue authorities are the respondents. The procedural history indicates that this issue has been previously adjudicated by the same High Court.

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 and an ex parte order-in-original is passed without a reply, the proceedings must 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 opportunity. In cases where the order-in-original was passed after contest and served only by uploading, the limitation period for 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 against such orders were dismissed on limitation, those orders would be set aside, and the appeals restored for hearing on merits. The Court found the present issue squarely covered by its previous judgment in 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 on the petitioner, in light of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner's contention, implied by the nature of the writ petition and the reliance on the cited precedent, is that such uploading alone does not constitute valid service unless actual receipt or acknowledgment is established. The revenue's argument, as reflected in the precedent case of Luxmi Traders, is that if the person concerned has knowledge of the notice and contests the proceedings by filing a reply, then the notice cannot be deemed not served, even if served solely by uploading on the portal. In such scenarios, the revenue contends that an order-in-original passed after contest cannot be challenged merely due to a defect in service by uploading.