2026-VIL-393-BOM

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Refund claim for goods supplied to SEZ – Rejection of refund on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit endorsed copies of invoices by the specified officer of the SEZ as required under Rule 89(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the appellate authority was right in rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit endorsed copies of invoices by the specified officer of the SEZ – HELD – The appellate authority had erred in its interpretation of Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which provides for four exceptions under which the petitioner could have produced additional evidence, including the endorsed copies of invoices, before the appellate authority - The petitioner's case falls within the exceptions provided under Rule 112(1)(a) to (d), and therefore, the appellate authority should have considered the additional evidence submitted by the petitioner. In any event, it could have been also appropriate for the appellate authority to remand the proceedings to the original authority, if any additional material produced by the petitioner requires examination by the original authority. The substantive contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are required to be taken into consideration by the appellate authority before passing any order - The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's additional evidence and pass an appropriate order. The petitioner should be allowed to urge any additional contentions before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority should record appropriate evidence on all such contentions - The writ petitions are disposed of

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page