2025 (7) TMI 1192 - HC - GST

Competence of appellate authority to accept any additional evidence in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 112 of the WBGST/CGST Rules 2017 - HELD THAT - As would appear from sub-rule (4) of the said Rules the Appellate Tribunal is competent notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of the said Rules to permit production of any document or examination of witness for him to dispose of the case on appeal. Admittedly such aspect has not been considered by the appellate authority. To that extent the order passed by the appellate authority appears to be mechanical. Matter remanded back to the appellate authority with a further direction upon the appellate authority to permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the form of a certificate issued by the respondent no.6 dated 10th August 2024 - the writ petition is disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the appellate authority is competent to accept additional evidence under Rule 112 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017.Scope and limitations on admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage in GST proceedings.Whether the appellate authority must consider its power under Rule 112(4) to direct production of documents or examination of witnesses notwithstanding restrictions in Rule 112(1).

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The appellate authority declined to admit additional evidence as it did not satisfy the conditions specified in Rule 112(1) of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017.Rule 112(4) confers power on the appellate authority to direct production of any document or examination of any witness to dispose of the appeal, which is independent of the restrictions in Rule 112(1).The appellate authority's rejection of additional evidence without considering Rule 112(4) was "mechanical" and thus the order was set aside and remanded for reconsideration.The appellate authority is directed to permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the form of a certificate dated 10th August, 2024 issued by the respondent, without any determination on the evidential value or merits of such evidence.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the provisions of Rule 112 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, which governs production of additional evidence before the Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal.Rule 112(1) restricts admission of additional evidence except under specified circumstances, requiring written reasons for admission under Rule 112(2), and procedural safeguards under Rule 112(3).Rule 112(4) provides an independent and broader power to the appellate authority to direct production of documents or examination of witnesses to enable disposal of the appeal, which must be considered before rejecting additional evidence.The appellate authority failed to consider this power under Rule 112(4), resulting in a "mechanical" order that did not fully appreciate the scope of the Rules.The Court did not decide on the correctness or evidential value of the additional evidence but remanded the matter for proper consideration in accordance with law.