TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Goods & Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), so also, the Order-in-Original dated 12th December, 2025 issued on 17th December, 2025 along with Form GST DRC-07 for the relevant financial year. 2. The petitioner, a private limited Company registered under the GST regime, having its place of business at New Delhi, holds registration as an "Authorized Courier" under Customs Laws, which entitles it in the said capacity to file courier shipping bills for customs clearance of international courier consignments. 3. An agreement came to be entered into by the petitioner and M/s Budget Courier Pvt. Ltd., having its office at New Delhi, for the period from 1st July, 2017 to 31st March, 2027 for the arrangements mentioned therein such as receiving consignments upon arrival at Airport, completing customs clearance and handing them over to M/s Budget Courier Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'License Agreement'). The said agreement provides for other terms and conditions as well. 4. During the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, in terms of the above referred license agreement, the petitioner claimed to have undertaken limited services of receiving In-boun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act and an equivalent penalty. The aforesaid demand was based on rates prescribed in the DHL Express "Service and Rates Guide 2018". 9. Personal hearing was offered to the petitioner vide notices dated 21st August, 2025, 11th September, 2025 and 9th October, 2025. On 29th October, 2025, reply in Form DRC-06 was submitted by the petitioner, which led to passing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 12th December, 2025, issued on 17th December, 2025, thereby confirming the demand as referred above in the Show Cause Notice along with the applicable interest under Section 50 of the Act and equivalent penalty under Section 74(9) of the Act. 10. Amongst others, the contentions raised while challenging the impugned Show Cause notice and the Order in Original referred above, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the proceedings before the respondents-Authorities are based on erroneous premises viz. the petitioner being incorrectly considered as a supplier of end-to-end courier services. It is urged that the license agreement dated 1st July, 2017 with M/s Budget Courier Pvt. Ltd. provides for limited facilitative services as could be inferred from recitals mentioned therein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra), which has been followed in a catena of other judgments cited supra, but there are certain exceptions to the aforesaid principle and such exceptions are limited to the extent (a) the Impugned Order is without jurisdiction; (b) the order is passed in violations of the principles of natural justice; (c) breach of fundamental rights; or (d) in case of challenge of vires of statute or delegated legislation. 17. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Vs. Commercial Steel Limited [(2022) 16 Supreme Court Cases 447] are worth referring to, which are reproduced as under:- "10. The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (a) A breach of fundamental rights; (b) A violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) An excess of jurisdiction; or (d) A challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 11. In the present case, non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of the petitioner that it has not provided any courier services, such issues, in our opinion and in the wake of aforesaid observations, can be gone into in the Appellate Jurisdiction and the same cannot be inferred to mean that there is a denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 22. A view expressed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order is assailed by the petitioner as the petitioner's contentions referred above were not accepted by the Authority, which, by itself, cannot be termed as violation of the principles of natural justice. Such contentions, in any eventuality, cannot be accepted so as to infer and hold that the petition is maintainable as there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid observations can be substantiated from the reasons recorded by the respondent no. 2 in the impugned order in original dated 12th December, 2025, issued on 17th December, 2025, particularly, from paras 18 and 19 which read thus: "18. It is observed that the Noticee has admitted that the courier services referred to in the SCN were actually carried out by M/s Budget Courier Private Limited, who had been permitted by the Noticee....