2025 (7) TMI 57 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilized input tax credit u/s 54(3) of the CGST Act and WBGST Act read with Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules 2017 - rejection of additional documents without assigning any cogent reason as to their relevancy or admissibility - principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority failed to consider crucial documents including shipping bills and other evidentiary records submitted during the appellate proceedings in support of the refund claim - HELD THAT - Upon a careful examination of the submissions made by the respective parties and scrutiny of the records this Court is of the considered view that the Appellate Authority ought to have duly examined the documents placed before it by the Petitioner in support of the refund claim. Rule 112 of the CGST Rules 2017 empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence under certain circumstances. Subrule (4) of Rule 112 being a non-obstante provision permits the Appellate Authority to direct production of documents or examination of witnesses if necessary for effective adjudication. In the present case the Appellate Authority rejected the additional documents without assigning any cogent reason as to their relevancy or admissibility. Further the Respondents have not demonstrated that the documents submitted by the Petitioner were either irrelevant or inadmissible for a just adjudication. The Court is thus of the opinion that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law by refusing to consider the additional documents submitted by the Petitioner. The impugned order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner CGST Central Excise Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate is hereby set aside and quashed - Petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

(a) Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act") erred in reversing the refund order granted to the Petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner;

(b) Whether the Appellate Authority failed to consider crucial additional documents, including shipping bills and other evidentiary records, submitted by the Petitioner during the appellate proceedings in support of the refund claim;

(c) Whether the Appellate Authority complied with the provisions of Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017, particularly regarding the admission and consideration of additional evidence;

(d) Whether the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 should be quashed on grounds of procedural impropriety and failure to exercise discretion judiciously;

(e) The appropriate remedy and directions to be issued in case of such procedural lapses by the Appellate Authority.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Legality of the Appellate Authority's reversal of the refund order

The Petitioner's refund claim under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and corresponding provisions of the West Bengal GST Act was initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 26.02.2021. The Department challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner (Appellate Authority), who reversed the refund and directed recovery of a substantial sum.

The Court examined whether such reversal was justified. The refund claim related to zero-rated supplies made to Bhutan through designated Land Customs Stations, a category eligible for refund of unutilized input tax credit under the CGST framework. The Petitioner had complied with procedural requirements by filing the refund application and submitting documents initially.

The reversal by the Appellate Authority was premised on the alleged non-submission or non-consideration of certain documents. However, the Court found that the Petitioner had submitted additional documents during the appellate proceedings, which were not considered. The failure to consider these documents undermined the basis of the reversal.

Issue (b): Consideration of additional documents and evidentiary records

The Petitioner contended that the requirement to submit shipping bills and other documents was not communicated at the initial stage but arose only during the appeal. Upon learning this, the Petitioner submitted the relevant documents. The Appellate Authority, however, did not consider these documents in its order, adversely affecting the Petitioner's case.

On the other hand, the Respondents argued that all materials, including additional documents, were duly considered and a reasoned order was passed. The Court scrutinized the impugned order and found no cogent reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority for rejecting the additional documents. No demonstration was made that these documents were irrelevant or inadmissible.

The Court emphasized that the Petitioner's documents were prima facie relevant to substantiate the refund claim. The non-consideration constituted a procedural lapse and a denial of an effective opportunity to the Petitioner.

Issue (c): Compliance with Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017 regarding admission of additional evidence

Rule 112 of the CGST Rules empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence under certain circumstances. Subrule (4) is a non-obstante provision enabling the Authority to direct production of documents or examination of witnesses if necessary for effective adjudication.

The Court held that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise this discretion judiciously. The rejection of the additional documents without assigning any reason contravened the procedural safeguards envisaged under Rule 112. The Court noted that the Respondents did not demonstrate the irrelevance or inadmissibility of the documents, which should have been the basis for rejection.

Thus, the Appellate Authority's refusal to consider additional evidence amounted to an error of law and procedure.

Issue (d): Quashing of the impugned order on grounds of procedural impropriety

Given the procedural irregularity in not considering the additional documents and the consequent prejudice to the Petitioner, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2023. The Court observed that the Appellate Authority's failure to exercise its discretion in accordance with law resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court further noted that although the order was appealable under Section 112 of the CGST Act, the Petitioner filed the writ petition due to the non-functioning of the Appellate Tribunal, which justified the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (e): Appropriate remedy and directions

The Court directed the Appellate Authority to rehear the appeal after duly considering the additional documents submitted by the Petitioner, particularly those referred to in paragraph 8.7 of the impugned order. The Petitioner or its authorized representative was to be afforded a personal hearing to ensure a fair adjudication.

The Court mandated that the appeal be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. This direction was aimed at preventing undue delay and safeguarding the Petitioner's rights.

The Court also clarified that no order as to costs would be made and that the allegations in the writ petition would not be deemed admitted due to the absence of affidavits from the Respondents.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"The Appellate Authority ought to have duly examined the documents placed before it by the Petitioner in support of the refund claim."

"Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017 empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence under certain circumstances. Subrule (4) of Rule 112, being a non-obstante provision, permits the Appellate Authority to direct production of documents or examination of witnesses if necessary for effective adjudication."

"The Appellate Authority rejected the additional documents without assigning any cogent reason as to their relevancy or admissibility."

"The Respondents have not demonstrated that the documents submitted by the Petitioner were either irrelevant or inadmissible for a just adjudication."

"The Appellate Authority failed to exercise its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law by refusing to consider the additional documents submitted by the Petitioner."

"The impugned order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate, is hereby set aside and quashed."

"The Appellate Authority is directed to rehear the appeal... after duly taking into account the documents submitted by the Petitioner/assessee... The Appellate Authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner or his authorized representative and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible."