TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Almost all high courts across India have uniformly expressed the views that communication must not only be sufficient compliance of law but must be effective. Serving of SCN under section 169 (1) (d) is only just one mode amongst other suggested five modes and when all five modes fail, mode f is suggested. The department may conclude the common portal mode of service as effective only when the same is either acknowledged or a reply is filed. In all other cases, it goes without saying that the notice or order is not effectively served. Moreover, even assuming (but without admitting) that service of SCN under section 169 (1) (d) is valid, it shall be imperative on the part of the quasi -judicial officer while passing the order in original to ensure that section 75 (4) is not violated.
Despite the above clear position of law and despite several benches of GSTAT already in place, in a batch of more than 38 writ petitions, the high court of Punjab and Haryana held on 21/07/2026 as reported in LUXMI TRADERS Versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS - 2026 (7) TMI 1602 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT allowed the writ and ruled that '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 weeks from 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 the Appellate 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 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'.
The above order is from the division bench of the high court in around 40 cases and each and every sub paragraphs I to v above are self -explanatory which gives the taxpayer an opportunity to pursue the matter further. The judgement is given after listening to several advocates representing both petitioners as well as respondents and considering the extant provisions. It was only on 24/07/2026 the Income Tax Department celebrated the 167th Income Tax Day wherein the Honourable finance minister expressed her concerns on the large number of pending appeals before various benches of ITAT all over India. The same concern is much applicable for GST cases as well and as on date, already more than 60,000 appeals have already been filed and there are few more working days during which portal remains open to accept legacy appeals till mid -night on 31/07/2026. Moreover, the token system which allows a grace period up to sixty days from date of generation of token is also in place. It is expected that there are approximately around 4,00,000 appeals in pipe line and by end of September 2026, the data on actual legacy appeals shall be in the public domain.
It is the message to the GST officials to stop passing ex parte orders including the cases where the show cause notice is properly replied as any violation of section 75(4) is against the principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court in SHRI KHERESHWAR MAHADEV VA DAUJI MAHARAJ SAMITI, ALIGARH Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. - 2025 (3) TMI 2073 - Supreme Court in para 15 observed as 'it is a settled law that when a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all'. Accordingly as 75 (4) has to be considered by the GST officials in passing the order in original, and it may be simply concluded that when the SCN was posted only in the common portal and that too prior to January 2024, the same is not effective communication as the portal was made visible to all notices and orders only in January 2024 as admitted by the respondents themselves to the Punjab and Haryana high court.
All concerned may take note of the above recent developments and as similar cases reach GSTAT benches, the benches are likely to quash or set aside the OIO as well as OIA which are like the one in Luxmi Trades case as above.