Uploading GST Notices On Portal Alone Is Not Valid Service Under CGST Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently held that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or adjudication order on the GST common portal does not amount to valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.

It ruled that www.gst.gov.in has not been notified as the common portal for serving notices or orders under Section 146 of the Act.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed, "We have no hesitation in accepting petitioner's submission that the Common Portal, i.e. www.gst.gov.in, is not a portal for the service of notices or orders and, therefore, it cannot be construed that the uploading of SCN or orders on the Common Portal would amount to service of such SCN or order upon the petitioner in terms of Section 169 of the Act of 2017."

The petitions raised a common legal question. The court had to decide whether uploading an SCN or an Order-in-Original in the "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST portal amounts to valid service under Sections 146 and 169 of the CGST Act. The answer would determine when the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 begins.

The lead case was filed by Luxmi Traders, which challenged an Order-in-Original dated December 28, 2023. The firm argued that the order had never been served in the manner prescribed under the Act. It said it consequently lost its statutory right to appeal. The petitioner also alleged that the order was passed without giving it an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners contended that the Department had simply uploaded the SCNs and adjudication orders in the "View Additional Notices and Orders" section of the GST portal.

They were not served personally, through registered post or speed post, or by email. Because they remained unaware of the proceedings, the Department treated the upload date as the date of service and their appeals were later held to be time-barred.

The revenue defended the practice. It argued that Section 169(1)(d) specifically permits service by making documents available on the common portal. It also submitted that taxpayers receive email intimations whenever notices or orders are uploaded and, therefore, the legal requirement of service stood satisfied.

The High Court disagreed. It examined Sections 146 and 169 of the CGST Act, the relevant rules, and the notifications issued by the Government. The Bench found that www.gst.gov.in had been notified for functions such as registration, payment of tax, filing returns, computation and settlement of tax and other specified purposes. However, no notification authorises the portal to be used for serving notices or adjudication orders.

The Court therefore held that uploading an SCN or adjudication order on the GST portal, by itself, cannot amount to valid service under Section 169.

The bench also rejected the department's reliance on email notifications. It noted that the emails merely inform taxpayers that a notice or order has been uploaded. The actual SCN or order is not attached. The Court held that such an intimation does not amount to service by email under Section 169(1)(c).

The court also criticized the way statutory notices are made available on the GST portal. The court noted that taxpayers have to navigate through several menus before reaching the "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab. There is nothing on the dashboard to indicate that any penal proceedings are pending.

Describing the process, the bench observed that locating an SCN or order is "like virtually playing a game of treasure hunt, the level of which game is extremely difficult, as the tabs in this game are not appropriately marked or labelled."

The court also stressed that technology should make compliance easier, not harder.

It observed, "The object is to facilitate compliance and ensure communication rather than to create procedural traps which could defeat substantive statutory remedies."

It suggested redesigning the GST portal by introducing dashboard alerts, pop-up notifications, OTP-based acknowledgements, SMS alerts and a separate section dedicated to statutory notices and orders.

The bench further noted that the Haryana government had itself issued an instruction on June 1, 2026 directing officers to additionally send SCNs and demand orders by registered or speed post. It said this reflected the practical difficulties taxpayers face when notices are uploaded only on the GST portal.

Granting relief, the court held that where ex parte adjudication orders had been passed after the Department merely uploaded the SCN on the GST portal, those proceedings would be restored to the stage of the SCN so that taxpayers could file their replies.

Where adjudication orders had been passed after contested proceedings but had been communicated only through portal upload, the limitation period for filing an appeal would not begin until the orders were validly served.

Appeals dismissed as time-barred on that basis were directed to be restored and decided on merits. The Court clarified that taxpayers who had already responded to an SCN could not later dispute service of that notice.

The bench disposed of the batch of writ petitions by granting relief to the petitioners. It also issued a series of directions aimed at improving the mechanism for electronic service of statutory communications under the GST regime

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sandeep Goyal (arguing counsel), Advocate Aakriti, Advocate Mohit Bassi, Advocate Urvi Khanna, and Advocate Aditya Gupta.

For Respondent: Additional Advocate General, Punjab Saurabh Kapoor (arguing counsel).