Case Laws
High Court of Punjab & HaryanaService Of Notices Orders

Shanaya Enterprises v. State of Punjab

In favour of the assessee

The ruling in brief

Shanaya Enterprises filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 23234/2026, 28 July 2026) disputing validity of GST notice and order-in-original served only by portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The petitioner learned of the demand only when coercive steps were threatened, having never filed a reply. Section 169 CGST applied. The court followed Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and held mere upload did not constitute valid service. Impugned proceedings were set aside or restored for response as prayed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment is a straightforward application of the Chandigarh High Court standard across Punjab, reinforcing that assessees may contest demands when the department cannot prove effective electronic intimation beyond passive portal posting.

For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.

Provisions considered

CGST S.169
  • CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.

Source documents

Similar rulings

High Court of Karnataka

In favour of the assessee

Lazard Infrastructure LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Lazard Infrastructure LLP filed a writ before the Karnataka High Court (WP 28678/2026, 15 September 2026) after its supplier LLP's input tax credit was blocked on the GST portal without prior intimation or pre-decisional hearing, based largely on advisory communication pending verification. The block disrupted downstream credit availability though no formal notice under Rule 86A preceded the restriction. Rule 86A and Section 169 were considered. The court found mechanical blocking unjustified where no show cause or hearing preceded the restriction. ITC was directed to be unblocked forthwith; fresh action could proceed only after due notice and opportunity of hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Recipient taxpayers affected by supplier-side blocks gain support for immediate unblock orders when departments act on unverified alerts without Rule 86A compliance, paralleling GVS Engineering on procedural invalidity.

CGST S.169CGST Rules R.86A
High Court of Calcutta

See the decision

Tahir Khan v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal

Tahir Khan approached the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9627/2024, 10 September 2026) with similar facts to companion logistics cases: show cause notice and adjudication order appeared under "Additional Notices and Orders" without separate intimation, and no personal hearing was afforded under Section 75 CGST read with Section 169. Unable to reply, the petitioner faced ex parte liability including interest and penalty. The court held natural justice was violated, quashed the impugned order and directed opportunity of personal hearing with a fresh speaking order on merits. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand. Tahir Khan illustrates the Calcutta High Court's consolidated approach to West Bengal portal-tab defects and "NA" hearing entries in 2024–2026 adjudications, leaving revenue free to re-determine tax after compliance with Section 169.

CGST S.169CGST S.75
High Court of Calcutta

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

T. K. Logistics v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal

T. K. Logistics filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9623/2024, 10 September 2026) against an adjudication order and show cause notice demanding tax, interest and penalty uploaded only under the portal tab "Additional Notice and Orders," without separate intimation; personal hearing showed "NA." The company discovered the demand only when enforcement was initiated. Sections 169 and 75 CGST applied. The petitioner remained unaware and could not reply. Justice Smita Das De found breach of natural justice, quashed the order-in-original and remanded for hearing after valid notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The decision pairs mis-tabbed service with failure to grant Section 75 personal hearing as grounds to reopen GST demands in West Bengal, consistent with Raju Ghosh and Tahir Khan.

CGST S.169CGST S.75
High Court of Delhi

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

A 1 Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato

A 1 Enterprises filed a writ before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 11634/2026, 13 August 2026) impugning a show cause notice and order under Section 73 CGST on the ground that both were served only by uploading on the GST portal, without proof of actual intimation or receipt, and that no reply had been filed in ignorance. The revenue relied on Section 169 on deemed service through the common portal. The court held that portal-only service without acknowledgement or evidence of receipt is insufficient where the assessee denies effective notice, following the approach in Luxmi Traders on meaningful service for proceedings with serious civil consequences. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee was granted opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand to the adjudication stage. The case reinforces that electronic upload alone does not dispense with the revenue's obligation to establish valid service under Section 169 when the taxpayer had no real opportunity to respond.

CGST S.169CGST S.73
High Court of Uttarakhand

In favour of the assessee

Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, State GST

Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. challenged Uttarakhand GST adjudication (WP 3695/2024, 11 August 2026) where the show cause notice was uploaded only on the portal after registration cancellation, without alternate modes under Section 169 or personal hearing under Section 73. The demand included tax, interest and penalty determined ex parte. The court held a cancelled registrant is not obliged to monitor the portal; portal-only service was invalid and failure to grant hearing rendered the adjudication order unsustainable. The order was quashed with liberty to the department to proceed after lawful service. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Combined with Ayaz Traders, Uttarakhand law now clearly rejects post-cancellation portal-only demands absent email, registered post or other prescribed service modes under Section 169.

CGST S.169CGST S.73
Members only

Go beyond news — unlock the full workspace

Sign up free to access AI search, document library, forms, and your personal knowledge base.

AI Assistant

Ask questions about tax, GST, audit — with citations from official documents.

Sign up to access

Document Library

Thousands of acts, circulars, notices, and guidance notes — searchable & AI-indexed.

Sign up to access

Forms Library

Official forms with instructions, deadlines, samples, and common mistakes.

Sign up to access