Court dismisses writ petitions, defers service matter classification. Article 226 not for fiscal cases with alternatives.

The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no violation of natural justice in the orders passed. It deferred the classification of service matter to the Appellate Authority for further examination. Emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies for factual inquiries, the court ruled that invoking Article 226 of the Constitution in fiscal cases is impermissible when alternative remedies exist. The petitioners were granted liberty to appeal before the Appellate Authority within four weeks for an independent decision on the issues.

---

---

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing orders.
2. Classification of service as Goods Transport Agency Service or Supply of Tangible Goods Service.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions.

Analysis:

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contested the orders in original, alleging a violation of natural justice as the respondent relied on materials from Blue Dart Express Limited post-hearing without providing copies to the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the service provided falls under Goods Transport Agency Service, not Supply of Tangible Goods. The respondent argued that the collected materials did not contradict the petitioners' statements, thus no prejudice was caused. The court found that the materials were in line with the petitioners' statements, concluding that no violation of natural justice occurred. The court emphasized that the appellate authority would address factual aspects and objections raised by the petitioners.

Classification of Service:
The main issue was whether the service provided by the petitioners falls under Goods Transport Agency Service or Supply of Tangible Goods Service. The petitioners claimed to be co-loaders for Blue Dart Express Limited, providing vehicles on hire without consignment notes. The court noted that the adjudicating authority had ruled against the petitioners, and the matter required further examination by the Appellate Authority. The court refrained from delving into the factual aspects, leaving it for the Appellate Authority to decide.

Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, citing the availability of statutory remedies before the competent authorities for factual inquiries. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized that in cases of fiscal nature, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution is impermissible when alternative remedies exist. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to appeal before the Appellate Authority within four weeks, directing the authority to consider and decide the matter independently.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions without expressing any view on the merits, leaving the classification of service and other issues for the Appellate Authority to determine.

---