The Punjab & Haryana High Court has, in two separate orders, disposed of fresh writ petitions on the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab portal service question in terms of Luxmi Traders — and in doing so, has specifically addressed and rejected the Revenue's most prominent attempt to distinguish or overcome the Luxmi Traders ruling: the amendment to the GST portal notification made by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022. The orders in Nuclear Motors Sales and Services Private Limited v. State of Haryana (CWP-39008-2025, 27.07.2026) and Dot Truckers Limited v. Excise and Taxation Officer Faridabad (CWP-38704-2025, 07.08.2026) are the authoritative clarification that the Finance Act 2022 argument does not alter the Luxmi Traders position.
The Revenue's argument in both cases was that when Luxmi Traders was decided, the Court was not informed of the Finance Act, 2022's Section 115, which retrospectively amended the GST portal notification (G.S.R. 58(E) dated 23.01.2018) to expand the Common Portal's scope to cover "all functions provided under the CGST Rules, 2017" with effect from 22.06.2017. If all functions under the Rules can be performed on the Common Portal, Revenue argued, then service of SCN and orders by uploading them on the portal is as valid as any other statutory mode of service.
The Division Bench, relying on the clarificatory order in The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana (CWP-15601-2026, 23.07.2026), rejected this argument in its entirety. The answer lies in examining the CGST Rules themselves: none of the Rules references the Common Portal for the purpose of service of SCN or orders. The Rules confine the Common Portal's utility to well-defined specific functions — registration, filing of returns, payment of tax, refund applications, advance rulings, appeals, e-way bills, and e-invoicing. Service of notices and orders is not among them. Expanding the portal's scope to cover "all functions under the Rules" through the notification amendment does not create a new function that the Rules themselves do not recognise. Moreover, even if uploading were treated as "electronic communication," the Luxmi Traders court had separately noted that the email communication accompanying the upload does not contain the SCN or order itself — making even that pathway non-compliant.
The result in both cases was disposal in terms of Luxmi Traders' paragraph 60 conclusions — proceedings restored to the SCN stage or the limitation for appeal held not triggered, as applicable to the facts of each petitioner. The Revenue's Section 115 argument, which had been its most sophisticated challenge to the Luxmi Traders ruling since it was decided in July 2026, has now been authoritatively addressed and rejected. Given the volume of portal service cases pending across all HCs, this clarification will have wide practical consequence.
-2026-juristway.com-2170-HC(Punjab & Haryana)-GST / 2026-juristway.com-2176-HC(Punjab & Haryana)-GST | High Court of Punjab & Haryana | 27.07.2026 & 07.08.2026