Power Line Air Express Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition challenging a GST demand confirmed under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, a courier service provider, was issued summons in February 2025 requiring production of financial and transactional records for multiple financial years. The petitioner responded by furnishing documents and later received a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 30 June 2025 alleging non-disclosure of tax liability, suppression of facts, and non-payment of GST for the period April 2018 to March 2024, proposing recovery of ₹3,00,14,058.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Upholds No Writ Relief Due to Alternate GST Remedy, Allows Delayed Appeal
The petitioner sought relied upon documents and filed a detailed reply with supporting materials, including invoices, rate lists, and transaction records. However, the adjudicating authority passed an Order-in-Original dated 18 December 2025 confirming the demand. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the show cause notice and the adjudication order, as well as protection from coercive action.
The petitioner contended that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice due to non-supply of relied upon documents and improper service of summons. It was also argued that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the reply and supporting documents, rendering the order arbitrary and showing non-application of mind. On merits, the petitioner challenged the valuation method adopted, asserting that transaction value under Section 15(1) was correctly disclosed and that reliance on alternative valuation methods and external benchmarks was erroneous. The invocation of Section 74 was also disputed on the ground that no fraud or suppression was established.
