Case Law Details
Power Line Air Express Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India considered a Special Leave Petition challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed against a GST demand confirmed under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court proceedings arose from summons issued in February 2025 requiring the petitioner to produce financial and transactional records for multiple years. The petitioner furnished documents and later received a show cause notice dated 30 June 2025 alleging suppression of facts and non-payment of GST for the period April 2018 to March 2024, proposing a demand of ₹3,00,14,058.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Writ Petition Dismissed Due to Availability of Alternate GST Appeal Remedy: Delhi HC
The petitioner sought relied upon documents and submitted a detailed reply with invoices, rate lists, and transaction records. However, the adjudicating authority passed an Order-in-Original dated 18 December 2025 confirming the demand. The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court, alleging violation of natural justice due to non-supply of relied upon documents, delayed service of summons, and non-consideration of its reply. It also contested the valuation method and the invocation of Section 74, arguing absence of fraud or suppression.
The High Court declined to examine the merits of the dispute and held that an effective alternative remedy was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It observed that all issues raised by the petitioner, including procedural irregularities, valuation disputes, and alleged non-application of mind, arose from the adjudicatory record and could be addressed by the appellate authority. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where a statutory remedy exists, except in limited circumstances. Finding no exceptional grounds, the High Court dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to pursue statutory remedies.
The matter was carried to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment and order. However, it clarified that if the petitioner chooses to avail the statutory appellate remedy, the appeal may be permitted to be filed without reference to delay in approaching the Tribunal. The Court expressly stated that it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With this clarification, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.
Thus, the combined effect of the High Court and Supreme Court decisions is that the challenge to the GST demand was not entertained in writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative statutory remedy, while preserving the petitioner’s right to file an appeal without being prejudiced by delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s).
2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, if the petitioner exercises its statutory remedy, the appeal may be permitted to be filed without reference to delay in approaching the Tribunal.
3. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
4. With aforesaid clarification, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
