` 128 IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-112716-2026 (O&M) Date off Decision: 22.07.2026 M/s Paramhanns Enterprises, Gurugram througgh its Sole Proprietor Balraj Sharrma …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryaana and others …Respondents CORAM: HHON’BLE THE ACTING CHIIEF JUSTICE HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHHIT KAPOOR Present: MMr. Yash Garg, Advocate for thee petitioner. MMr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. AG, Haaryana. *** ASHWANI KKUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Orral) 1. SShort question that requires cons ideration in this writ petition is asa to whether uploaading of a notice as well as thee order-in-original in the tab ‘VView Additional Nootices and Orders’, on the commmon portal, being www.gst.goov.in amounts to prroper service of it, on the petitionner in view of Section 169 read withw Section 146 oof the Central Goods and Servicees Tax Act, 2017? 2. TThe issue raised in this regard sttands settled by this Court in CWWP-27139-2025 ttitled Luxmi Traders v/s Uniion Territory of Chandigarh and Others. 3. TThis Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (suppra), has observed as under:- ““58. With reference to the abbove provision, it is submittedd on bbehalf of the revenue that servicce of notice by uploading it onn the CCommon Portal cannot be disc arded where the person concerrned RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12716-2026 (O&M) [2]

has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing reply etc. In such cases, the SCN cannot be said to have not been served upon the assessee. 59. The contention advanced on behalf of the revenue, in this regard, merits consideration. In cases where the SCN has been responded to by the person concerned, and after contest, the order-in-original is passed by the competent authority, the order-in-original cannot be challenged merely due to defect in service of SCN/order on the taxpayer by uploading it on the Common Portal. 60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:- (i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. (ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.

(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeksfrom today. (iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of theAppellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits. RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12716-2026 (O&M) [3] (v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.” 4. As the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Luxmi Traders (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 5. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 22.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

` 128 IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-112716-2026 (O&M) Date off Decision: 22.07.2026 M/s Paramhanns Enterprises, Gurugram througgh its Sole Proprietor Balraj Sharrma …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryaana and others …Respondents CORAM: HHON’BLE THE ACTING CHIIEF JUSTICE HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHHIT KAPOOR Present: MMr. Yash Garg, Advocate for thee petitioner. MMr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. AG, Haaryana. *** ASHWANI KKUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Orral) 1. SShort question that requires cons ideration in this writ petition is asa to whether uploaading of a notice as well as thee order-in-original in the tab ‘VView Additional Nootices and Orders’, on the commmon portal, being www.gst.goov.in amounts to prroper service of it, on the petitionner in view of Section 169 read withw Section 146 oof the Central Goods and Servicees Tax Act, 2017? 2. TThe issue raised in this regard sttands settled by this Court in CWWP-27139-2025 ttitled Luxmi Traders v/s Uniion Territory of Chandigarh and Others. 3. TThis Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (suppra), has observed as under:- ““58. With reference to the abbove provision, it is submittedd on bbehalf of the revenue that servicce of notice by uploading it onn the CCommon Portal cannot be disc arded where the person concerrned RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12716-2026 (O&M) [2]

has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing reply etc. In such cases, the SCN cannot be said to have not been served upon the assessee. 59. The contention advanced on behalf of the revenue, in this regard, merits consideration. In cases where the SCN has been responded to by the person concerned, and after contest, the order-in-original is passed by the competent authority, the order-in-original cannot be challenged merely due to defect in service of SCN/order on the taxpayer by uploading it on the Common Portal. 60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:- (i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. (ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.

(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeksfrom today. (iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of theAppellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits. RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-12716-2026 (O&M) [3] (v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.” 4. As the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Luxmi Traders (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 5. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 22.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.