M/S. Pooja Logistics Limited vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit-1 & Ors.

2026

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner does not dispute that the statutory appeal against the Impugned OIO dated 25.03.2026 is maintainable before the Appellate Authority. Nevertheless, it is the principal grievance of the Petitioner that the Impugned OIO proceeds on the premise that once the Petitioner opted for FCM, it was required to discharge GST at 12% on all GTA supplies, including those on which tax had already been paid by the recipients under RCM, resulting in an inflated and duplicative tax demand.

It is also the case of the Petitioner that the impugned proceedings are premised upon the impermissible double taxation as payment of taxes is not disputed. In this regard, reference has been made to paragraph nos.20.08 and 20.10 which reads as under: “20.8 Further, the noticee contended that demand leads to double taxation, since recipients had already paid tax under RCM. I find that the contention of the noticee is not correct in law because it is held that the liability under GST is determined as per statute, not by who has paid tax incorrectly. If tax is paid by a wrong person then there are remedy lies in refund/adjustment, not denial of correct liability. In this regard, Hon'ble Courts have consistently held that "Tax paid by one person does not extinguish liability of the correct taxable person under statute." Further, the Noticee has not established legally valid discharge under RCM framework (since RCM itself was inapplicable after opting FCM). Therefore I find that there is no double taxation. xxxx

10 I also find that noticee has provided certificates from recipients, however, the Certificates submitted by recipients, do not override statutory provisions and cannot validate an otherwise illegal tax mechanism, Department is not bound to verify third-party compliance where primary liability lies on the Noticee therefore such documents are self-serving and legally insufficient.”

This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of learned This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:15:58

The scope of consideration before the Appellate Authority is significantly wider than the limited scope of interference in the exercise of writ juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, if the Petitioner avails the statutory remedy of appeal, all the contentions raised in the present Petition shall be examined by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

In view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy, the Petitioner is relegated to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority.

With these observations, the present Petition, along with all pending applications, stands disposed of.