CA Dr. Atul Kumar Gupta
Portal Upload Alone Is Not Service — Assessee Must Receive Actual Intimation, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case: Luxmi Traders & Ors. vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Citation: 2026 Taxo.online 2044
1. BACKGROUND
The Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, under Section 169, prescribes the modes of service for notices, orders, and decisions issued under the Act. The provision mandates that any communication must be served through one of the specified methods, including delivery by post, courier, email, or making it available on the common GST portal. However, Section 146 of the CGST Act empowers the government to notify additional modes of service, including electronic means.
The GST portal was designed to facilitate seamless communication between taxpayers and authorities.
However, the lack of clarity on whether mere uploading of a notice/order on the portal constitutes valid service has led to disputes. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in
Luxmi Traders & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.
(2026 Taxo.online 2044), addressed this critical issue, holding that mere uploading of a show-cause notice (SCN) or order on the GST portal, without adherence to prescribed modes of service,
does not amount to valid service under Section 169.
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners, Luxmi Traders & Ors., challenged an order-in-original passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, alleging that they were never served with the Show Cause Notice (SCN) or the final order in accordance with the prescribed modes of service. The revenue contended that the SCN and order were uploaded on the GST portal under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab, which, in their view, constituted valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act.
The petitioners argued that:
- The GST portal’s interface was cumbersome and non-intuitive, requiring multiple clicks through
nested tabs to locate notices or orders, making it akin to a “treasure hunt.” - They were never informed of the SCN or order through any of the prescribed modes under
Section 169(1), such as registered post, email, or physical delivery. - The opportunity of hearing, as mandated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, was denied before
the issuance of the demand order. - The limitation period for filing an appeal had lapsed due to their lack of awareness of the order.
The revenue, in response, relied on Section 169(1)(d), which permits service
“by making it available on the common portal,” and argued that uploading on the portal
was sufficient compliance.
3. ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether mere uploading of an SCN or order on the GST portal’s “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
- Whether the revenue’s failure to serve the SCN/order through any of the prescribed modes under Section 169(1) vitiates the proceedings.
- Whether the denial of an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act renders
the order non-est in law.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS
Non-Compliance with Section 169(1)
- Section 169(1) enumerates specific modes of service — direct/messenger,
registered post/courier, e-mail, common portal, newspaper publication, or
affixation — and mere uploading on the portal (Clause d) does not constitute valid
service unless coupled with another prescribed mode. - The revenue’s reliance on Clause (d) alone was misplaced, as the portal’s design
made it difficult for assessees to discover notices or orders without explicit intimation.
Violation of Natural Justice
- Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing where a request is received in
writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated; failure to serve the SCN properly
deprived them of this opportunity.
Precedents on Portal-Based Service
- M/s SA Aromatics Pvt Ltd v. Union of India
(2026 Taxo.online 1127, Allahabad HC) — adjudication under Sections 73/74 must be
preceded by proper service of notice.
REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS
Portal as a Valid Mode of Service
- Section 169(1)(d) permits service “by making it available on the common portal”;
uploading was sufficient compliance as the portal is the primary mode of communication under GST.
Email Notification as Supplementary
- An email notification was sent to the assessee’s registered email address at the time of
uploading, satisfying the requirement of intimation; the onus was on the assessee to
regularly check the portal.
No Violation of Natural Justice
- No specific request for a hearing was made by the petitioners, so Section 75(4)
was not triggered; lack of awareness of the SCN/order was not a ground to invalidate proceedings.
Precedents Supporting Portal-Based Service
- CG Tollway Ltd. v. Union of India
(2026 Taxo.online 1492, Rajasthan HC) — upheld the validity of portal-based
service in certain circumstances. - Deepak Singhal v. Union of India
(2024 Taxo.online 2029, MP HC) — service through the portal must be accompanied
by actual intimation to the assessee.
“Treasure Hunt” Analogy
- The portal’s interface required navigating multiple nested tabs, placing an unreasonable
burden on the assessee to constantly monitor the portal.
5. HELD: EXTRACTS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in its landmark judgment, held in favour of the assessee,
quashing the order-in-original and directing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings after ensuring
proper service of the SCN. The key extracts of the judgment are as follows:
1. Invalidity of “Upload-Only” Service Under Section 169
THE COURT OBSERVED
“It is only after one clicks on the aforesaid sub-tab ‘User Services’, that one is lead to the opening of another 14 sub-tabs one of which is ‘Notices and Orders’. Even when this tab is clicked, no SCN or order, as in the present case, gets displayed, because such notices and/or the impugned order
gets displayed only when a sub-tab within the sub-tab ‘Notices and Orders’ i.e. ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ is clicked upon. Thus, to locate the same 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 FURTHER HELD
“Section 169 provides in categorical terms that any decision, order, or notice under the Act of 2017 or the Rules made thereunder, has to be served by any of the methods specified in sub-section (1) thereof. It is undisputed that the notice and order were served upon the petitioner only by making
them available on the Common Portal. Apart from sending a communication to the e-mail address provided at the time of registration regarding the uploading of the notice/order, none of the other modes of service of notice/order specified in sub-section (1) of Section 169 of the Act of 2017 have been resorted to by the Department.”
- Mere uploading on the portal does not constitute valid service unless coupled with another
prescribed mode (e.g., email, registered post). - The GST portal’s design is non-intuitive, making it unreasonable to expect assessees
to discover notices/orders without explicit intimation.
2. Non-Compliance with Section 169(1) Vitiates Proceedings
THE COURT HELD
“The legislature, in its wisdom, has prescribed multiple modes of service under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act. The revenue cannot unilaterally rely on Clause (d) alone (making it available on the common portal) without ensuring that the assessee is actually informed of the notice/order. The onus is on the revenue to ensure that service is effected in a manner that guarantees actual
knowledge to the assessee.”
- Service must be effective and not merely technical.
- Uploading on the portal, without additional intimation, is insufficient to satisfy Section 169(1).
3. Violation of Section 75(4) — Denial of Opportunity of Hearing
THE COURT OBSERVED
“In terms of Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, prior to the issuance of the impugned demand, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The failure to serve the SCN properly deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to request a hearing, which is a fundamental requirement of natural justice.”
- Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.
- Failure to serve the SCN properly vitiates the entire proceedings, as the assessee is
denied a fair chance to defend itself.
4. Directions to the Revenue
THE COURT DIRECTED
“The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are permitted to contest the appeals on merits, treating them as within the limitation period. The authorities are directed to ensure proper service of notices/orders in the future, in accordance with Section 169(1) of the CGST Act.”
6. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Section 169 – Service of Notice in Certain Circumstances
SECTION 169(1), CGST ACT, 2017
“(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:— (a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier…; or (b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due…; or (c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address…; or (d) by making it available on the common portal; or (e) by publication in a newspaper…; or (f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence.”
Explanatory Note:
The provision mandates that service must be effected through one of the prescribed modes.
Mere uploading on the portal (Clause d) is not sufficient unless coupled with another mode,
such as email or physical delivery.
Section 75(4) – Opportunity of Hearing
SECTION 75(4), CGST ACT, 2017
“An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplatedagainst such person.”
Explanatory Note:
The provision ensures that assessees are afforded a fair opportunity to be heard before
an adverse order is passed. Failure to serve the SCN properly deprives the assessee of this right.
Section 146 – Common Portal
SECTION 146, CGST ACT, 2017
“The Government may notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal for facilitating registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and settlement of integrated tax, electronic way bill and for carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed.”
Explanatory Note:
While the portal is intended to facilitate GST compliance, notifications under Section 146 have
not prescribed the portal as the exclusive mode for service of notices/orders.
7. CONCLUSION
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in Luxmi Traders & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. (2026 Taxo.online 2044) serves as a landmark precedent on the validity of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court categorically held that mere uploading of an SCN/order on the GST portal does not constitute valid service unless coupled with another
prescribed mode (e.g., email, registered post), and that the GST portal’s interface is non-intuitive, making it unreasonable to expect assessees to discover notices/orders without explicit intimation.
Failure to serve the SCN properly violates Section 75(4), denying the assessee the
opportunity of hearing and vitiating the proceedings. The revenue must ensure proper
service in future proceedings to uphold the principles of natural justice.
This judgment reinforces the importance of due process in GST adjudication and sets a
binding precedent for proper service of notices/orders under the CGST Act. Assessees can
now challenge proceedings where the revenue relies solely on portal-based service without
additional intimation.
