` 137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Panchkula Golf Club Union of India CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. AG, Haryana. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. 1. Short whether uploading of a notice as well as the order Additional Notices and Orders amounts to proper service of it, on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. The issue raised in this regard stands settled by this Court in CWP 27139-2025 titled Others. 3. This Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of has observed as under: “ behalf of the revenue that service of notice by u Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing reply IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17178 Date of Decision: Panchkula Golf Club Vs. Union of India and others HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. AG, Haryana. *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) Short question that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether uploading of a notice as well as the order Additional Notices and Orders’, on the common portal, being amounts to proper service of it, on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The issue raised in this regard stands settled by this Court in CWP 2025 titled Luxmi Traders v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh and This Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of has observed as under:- “58. With reference to the above provision, it is submitted on behalf of the revenue that service of notice by u Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing reply IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 17178-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. AG, Haryana. (Oral) question that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether uploading of a notice as well as the order-in-original in the tab ‘View ’, on the common portal, being www.gst.gov.in amounts to proper service of it, on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The issue raised in this regard stands settled by this Court in CWP rs v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh and This Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (supra), 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 question that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to View .gov.in amounts to proper service of it, on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with The issue raised in this regard stands settled by this Court in CWP- rs v/s Union Territory of Chandigarh and (supra), With reference to the above provision, it is submitted on ploading it on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing reply RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17178-2026 (O&M) [2] 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. (v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-17178-2026 (O&M) [3] 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.