` IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-221841-2025 (O&M) Date off Decision: 27.07.2026 Boxing Federration of India …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryaana and others …Respondennts CORAM: HHON’BLE THE ACTING CHIIEF JUSTICE HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHHIT KAPOOR Present: MMr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Advocat e with MMr. Ambika Jindal, Advocate an d MMr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate for thhe 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 NNotices and Orders’, on the coommon portal, being www.gst.ggov.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 the present case is no longer res integra and stands concluuded by the judgment of this CCourt in CWP-27139-2025, Luuxmi Traders v. UnUnion Territory of Chandigarh aand Others. The said judgmentt has been further cclarified by this Court in CWP-115601-2026, The Amar Cooperaative LC Society Lttd. v. State of Haryana and Otheers, decided on 23.07.2026. 3. TThis Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (suppra), has observed as under:- RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [2]

“58. With reference to the above provision, it is submitted on behalf of the revenue that service of notice by uploading it on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned 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 RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [3] aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits. (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. Learned counsel for the revenue, however, submits that while deciding Luxmi Traders (supra), this Court was not apprised of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, whereby Section 115 was introduced which provides as under:-

“115. (1) The notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number G.S.R 58(E), dated the 23rd January, 2018, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Council, under Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner specified in column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, on and from the date specified in column (3) of that Schedule. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to amend the notification referred to in the said sub-section with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to amend the said notification under section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, retrospectively, at all material times.” 5. The Schedule referred to in Section 115 reads as under:- “THE FIFTH SCHEDULE {See sectin 115(1)} RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [4] Notification Amendment Date of effect of number and amendment date (1) (2) (3)

G.S.R. 58(E), In the said notification, in 22nd June, 2017 dated the 23rd paragraph 1, for the words January, 2018 “furnishing of returns and {No.349/58/201 computation and settlement 7-GST (Pt), of integrated tax”, the dated 23rd following shall be January, 2018 substituted namely:-“furnishing of returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax and save as otherwise provided in the notification number G.S.R. 925(E), dated the 13th December, 2019, all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 6. The view taken by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) was further clarified in The Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.15601 of 2026, decided on 23.07.2026, wherein it was held as under:-“6. With reference to the aforesaid amendment, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the notification issued on 23.01.2018 stood amended retrospectively in the manner specified in Column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, whereby all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, the ‘Rules of 2017’), could also be performed on the Common Portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue on the ground that the Rules of 2017 nowhere permit the uploading of the SCN/Order on the Common Portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only provision that could be pressed into service, whereunder the orders, etc., are required to be communicated electronically. It is RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [5] also pointed out that this Court, in Luxmi Traders (supra), has taken note of this aspect and thereafter observed that the orders cannot be treated as having been communicated electronically, since the e-mail does not contain the SCN/order itself. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further submitted that the notification issued by the Government specifically identifies the Common Portal in terms of Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and unless the Common Portal is expressly specified by way of a notification for effecting service of the SCN/order, the expression "uploading" occurring in Rule 145(5) of the Rules of 2017 would not, ipso facto, legitimize the service of the SCN/order upon an assessee. 9. It is also pointed out that expression ‘Common Portal’ has been used several times for different purposes in the Rules of 2017, which are as follows:- Registration:- 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 12, 14, 14A, 17, 19, 20, 21A, 23, 24, 83B

Returns/Registers:-59, 60, 61, 61A, 62, 63, 65, 80, 81, 85, 86, 88C, 88D, 117,120A, 140 Payment:- 87, 142(2), 142(2B) Assessment:- 98 Refund:- 89, 90, 95, 95B, 96 Advance Ruling:- 104 Appeal:- 108, 110, 111 Recovery:- 142B E-way bill:- 138, 138A, 138D, E-invoicing:- 48 10. None of the provisions of the Rules of 2017 refers to Common Portal for the purpose of service of SCN/order. As indicated above, the Rules explicitly confine the utility of the Common Portal to limited functions, such as registration, filing of returns, payment of tax etc., rather than expanding its scope to substitute formal service of SCN/order. 11. We find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise, we have already observed in Luxmi RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [6] Traders (supra) that the complex process by which the order is sought to be served upon the petitioner/assessee cannot receive the approval of law, particularly when it leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee. We are, therefore, not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed in Luxmi Traders (supra) merely on account of the reference to the provisions of the Act of 2022, noticed above. 12. In the present case as well, the order was uploaded only on the Common Portal, and the petitioner has specifically stated that being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge thereof.

13. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders (supra). 14. However, in the event, the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the amount towards the statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing the appeal, the appeal itself shall be heard and decided on merits. Any recovery effected from the petitioner shall abide by the final adjudication of the matter in the competent proceedings. Any attachment of petitioner’s bank account, pursuant to the order under challenge, shall stand revoked.” 7. As the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 27.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

` IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH CWP-221841-2025 (O&M) Date off Decision: 27.07.2026 Boxing Federration of India …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryaana and others …Respondennts CORAM: HHON’BLE THE ACTING CHIIEF JUSTICE HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHHIT KAPOOR Present: MMr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Advocat e with MMr. Ambika Jindal, Advocate an d MMr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate for thhe 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 NNotices and Orders’, on the coommon portal, being www.gst.ggov.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 the present case is no longer res integra and stands concluuded by the judgment of this CCourt in CWP-27139-2025, Luuxmi Traders v. UnUnion Territory of Chandigarh aand Others. The said judgmentt has been further cclarified by this Court in CWP-115601-2026, The Amar Cooperaative LC Society Lttd. v. State of Haryana and Otheers, decided on 23.07.2026. 3. TThis Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (suppra), has observed as under:- RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [2]

“58. With reference to the above provision, it is submitted on behalf of the revenue that service of notice by uploading it on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned 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 RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [3] aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits. (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. Learned counsel for the revenue, however, submits that while deciding Luxmi Traders (supra), this Court was not apprised of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, whereby Section 115 was introduced which provides as under:-

“115. (1) The notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number G.S.R 58(E), dated the 23rd January, 2018, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Council, under Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner specified in column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, on and from the date specified in column (3) of that Schedule. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to amend the notification referred to in the said sub-section with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to amend the said notification under section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, retrospectively, at all material times.” 5. The Schedule referred to in Section 115 reads as under:- “THE FIFTH SCHEDULE {See sectin 115(1)} RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [4] Notification Amendment Date of effect of number and amendment date (1) (2) (3)

G.S.R. 58(E), In the said notification, in 22nd June, 2017 dated the 23rd paragraph 1, for the words January, 2018 “furnishing of returns and {No.349/58/201 computation and settlement 7-GST (Pt), of integrated tax”, the dated 23rd following shall be January, 2018 substituted namely:-“furnishing of returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax and save as otherwise provided in the notification number G.S.R. 925(E), dated the 13th December, 2019, all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 6. The view taken by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) was further clarified in The Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.15601 of 2026, decided on 23.07.2026, wherein it was held as under:-“6. With reference to the aforesaid amendment, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the notification issued on 23.01.2018 stood amended retrospectively in the manner specified in Column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, whereby all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, the ‘Rules of 2017’), could also be performed on the Common Portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue on the ground that the Rules of 2017 nowhere permit the uploading of the SCN/Order on the Common Portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only provision that could be pressed into service, whereunder the orders, etc., are required to be communicated electronically. It is RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [5] also pointed out that this Court, in Luxmi Traders (supra), has taken note of this aspect and thereafter observed that the orders cannot be treated as having been communicated electronically, since the e-mail does not contain the SCN/order itself. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further submitted that the notification issued by the Government specifically identifies the Common Portal in terms of Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and unless the Common Portal is expressly specified by way of a notification for effecting service of the SCN/order, the expression "uploading" occurring in Rule 145(5) of the Rules of 2017 would not, ipso facto, legitimize the service of the SCN/order upon an assessee. 9. It is also pointed out that expression ‘Common Portal’ has been used several times for different purposes in the Rules of 2017, which are as follows:- Registration:- 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 12, 14, 14A, 17, 19, 20, 21A, 23, 24, 83B

Returns/Registers:-59, 60, 61, 61A, 62, 63, 65, 80, 81, 85, 86, 88C, 88D, 117,120A, 140 Payment:- 87, 142(2), 142(2B) Assessment:- 98 Refund:- 89, 90, 95, 95B, 96 Advance Ruling:- 104 Appeal:- 108, 110, 111 Recovery:- 142B E-way bill:- 138, 138A, 138D, E-invoicing:- 48 10. None of the provisions of the Rules of 2017 refers to Common Portal for the purpose of service of SCN/order. As indicated above, the Rules explicitly confine the utility of the Common Portal to limited functions, such as registration, filing of returns, payment of tax etc., rather than expanding its scope to substitute formal service of SCN/order. 11. We find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise, we have already observed in Luxmi RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21841-2025 (O&M) [6] Traders (supra) that the complex process by which the order is sought to be served upon the petitioner/assessee cannot receive the approval of law, particularly when it leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee. We are, therefore, not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed in Luxmi Traders (supra) merely on account of the reference to the provisions of the Act of 2022, noticed above. 12. In the present case as well, the order was uploaded only on the Common Portal, and the petitioner has specifically stated that being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge thereof.

13. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders (supra). 14. However, in the event, the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the amount towards the statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing the appeal, the appeal itself shall be heard and decided on merits. Any recovery effected from the petitioner shall abide by the final adjudication of the matter in the competent proceedings. Any attachment of petitioner’s bank account, pursuant to the order under challenge, shall stand revoked.” 7. As the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 27.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 12:23 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.