The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of the writ petition filed by M/s Nexas Electrotech Pvt. Ltd. by applying its earlier decision in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. The dispute concerned whether uploading a show cause notice and an order-in-original under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST common portal constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The judgment was delivered on 22 July 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor in CWP-22305-2026 (O&M).
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner approached the High Court questioning the validity of service of the GST notice and the adjudication order. According to the issue framed by the Court, both documents had been uploaded on the GST portal under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab.
The principal question was whether such uploading, by itself, amounted to valid and proper service upon the taxpayer for the purposes of Section 169 of the CGST Act.
High Court Relies on Luxmi Traders
The High Court observed that the issue had already been settled in Luxmi Traders. In that decision, the Court had distinguished between cases in which the taxpayer had actual knowledge of the notice and participated in the proceedings, and cases in which the taxpayer did not respond because the notice was merely uploaded on the portal.
The Court reiterated that service of a show cause notice cannot be treated as sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the common portal, unless the taxpayer acknowledged receipt or filed a reply.
Where a taxpayer responds to the show cause notice and contests the adjudication proceedings, the resulting order-in-original cannot ordinarily be challenged solely on the ground of a defect in service.
Ex Parte Orders Based on Portal Upload
The principles reproduced in the judgment clarify that where a show cause notice is served only through portal uploading and the taxpayer does not file a reply, an ex parte adjudication order may be set aside. In such cases, the proceedings are liable to be restored to the stage of issuance of the show cause notice.
The taxpayer may then be permitted to file a reply within the period allowed by the Court, after which the department must continue the proceedings by providing an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
Limitation for Filing GST Appeal
The Court also reiterated that where an order-in-original passed after contest is served only by uploading it on the GST portal, the limitation period for filing an appeal may not commence merely from the date of such uploading.
Where an appeal has been dismissed as time-barred despite the order having been served only through portal uploading, the appellate order may be set aside and the appeal restored for a decision on merits.
Similarly, where both the show cause notice and ex parte adjudication order were only uploaded on the portal and the subsequent appeal was dismissed for delay, the proceedings may be restored to the show cause notice stage.
Decision in Nexas Electrotech
Finding that the controversy in the present petition was squarely covered by Luxmi Traders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The order reinforces the requirement that GST authorities must ensure effective service of notices and orders. Mere technical uploading of a document on the common portal may not, in every case, amount to valid service, particularly where the taxpayer has neither acknowledged the notice nor participated in the proceedings.
Significance of the Judgment
The decision is relevant for taxpayers facing ex parte GST demands based on notices uploaded only under the additional notices tab of the portal. It is also significant in cases where statutory appeals have been rejected on limitation despite the taxpayer asserting that the adjudication order was never effectively communicated.
At the same time, the judgment makes it clear that a taxpayer who had knowledge of the proceedings and filed a reply cannot subsequently challenge the adjudication merely by alleging a defect in the mode of service.
