United Chem India v. Excise and Taxation Officer
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
United Chem India filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (27 July 2026) against notice and order-in-original served only by GST portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee sought quashing of ex parte liability and restoration of appellate rights dismissed as time-barred. Sections 169 and 146 CGST applied. Following Luxmi Traders, electronic uploading alone was insufficient service; ex parte proceedings were restored to the show cause stage for reply, and appeal limitation did not commence from mere upload. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The case mirrors parallel Rohit Kapoor bench rulings in July 2026 reinforcing uniform Punjab-Haryana treatment of unacknowledged portal service and aligning with Gugal Electrical and Shanaya Enterprises on limitation for appeals under Section 107.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.
- CGST S.146 — Common Portal notification and legal recognition.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works v. State of Punjab
Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 21363/2025, 27 July 2026) against show cause notice and order-in-original served solely by GST portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee had filed appeals rejected as time-barred on the assumption that portal posting started limitation. Sections 169 and 146 CGST were read together; Rule 142 was noted. Following Luxmi Traders, portal-only upload did not constitute valid service or trigger appeal limitation; appeals dismissed as time-barred were restored. Retrospective amendments did not salvage invalid service because Rules did not permit the mode used. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practitioners facing time-barred appeal dismissals on portal-service assumptions should cite this precedent for restoration of appellate rights when receipt was never established and merits may be heard afresh.
In favour of the assessee
Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 15601/2026, 23 July 2026) against ex parte orders and rectification orders served solely by upload on the GST Common Portal. The society cited illiteracy and lack of knowledge of portal monitoring. Sections 169 and 146 CGST and Rule 142 were considered. The court held that mere portal upload is insufficient for valid service affecting limitation where serious civil consequences attach, and that retrospective legal changes did not validate defective service in the facts before it. Portal-only communication did not bind the assessee for limitation or finality purposes. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The decision aligns with Luxmi Traders principles and cautions revenue against assuming universal digital literacy or continuous portal access, particularly for cooperative and smaller taxpayers.
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.
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.
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.