Sodexo India Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a demand of approximately ₹8.75 crore, together with applicable interest and penalty, was confirmed against the petitioner on eleven issues arising from audit proceedings. The principal component of the demand related to the allegation that the supply of catering services and sale of pre-packaged food products constituted a composite supply liable to GST at 18%.
At the outset, the Court observed that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It noted that the statutory appellate mechanism empowered the appellate authority to examine questions of fact and law, re-appreciate evidence, scrutinise findings, and determine the legality and correctness of the adjudication. The Court stated that constitutional courts ordinarily exercise restraint where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, although recognised exceptions exist, including breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of legislation.
The petitioner submitted that the challenge was confined to the decision-making process. It contended that although replies, agreements, invoices, reconciliations and supporting documents had been furnished during the audit and adjudication proceedings, if the adjudicating authority considered the material insufficient, it ought to have called for additional documents or clarifications before determining liability. It was also argued that the replies had not been adequately considered and that the impugned order had been passed mechanically in violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Malaysia Airlines Berhad v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr. and Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited v. Goods and Service Tax Officer (GSTO) Ward 203 & Ors.
