Appellate Authority can re-examine all aspects of the case, including evidence and submissions, and cannot remand the matter to the original authority

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sonu Monu Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Jitender Garg & Anr. Versus The Union Of India Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, & Anr. - 2025 (7) TMI 1395 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act is empowered to fully adjudicate the entire matter afresh, including considering the taxpayer's reply, evidence, and arguments, and that the only embargo is that the matter cannot be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The appeal before the Appellate Authority is a full-fledged first appeal, and consolidation of show cause notices for multiple years does not prevent comprehensive appellate adjudication.

Facts:

Sonu Monu Telecom Pvt. Ltd. ('the Petitioner') was issued a composite show cause notice for alleged ineligible input tax credit (ITC) claims spanning financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 by the Union of India, Ministry of Finance ('the Respondent'), followed by detailed adverse adjudication quantifying tax, penalty, and interest for each period. The Adjudicating Authority passed a single order against the Petitioner, which included findings on multiple years and amounts.

The Petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to adequately consider its reply to the composite show cause notice and that, under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, only the proper officer could consider such reply. The Petitioner further argued that, once before the Appellate Authority, such Authority could only test the correctness of the original order and not freshly evaluate reply or evidence.

The Respondent contended that under Section 107(11)CGST Act, the Appellate Authority has plenary powers to confirm, modify, or annul the decision appealed against, including the power to fully re-examine the evidence and reply. The only bar on the Appellate Authority is against remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.

Aggrieved by the original order and the manner in which the appeal was being dealt with, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226.

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11)CGST Act, 2017, can re-examine and adjudicate afresh the entire matter, including the taxpayer's reply and evidence, or is limited only to reviewing the adjudication order as passed by the original authority?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sonu Monu Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Jitender Garg & Anr. Versus The Union Of India Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, & Anr. - 2025 (7) TMI 1395 - DELHI HIGH COURTheld as under:

• Observed that, Section 107(11) empowers the Appellate Authority to confirm, modify, or annul the appealed order and to take all such measures that could be taken in a full first appeal.
• Noted that, the only statutory embargo is against remanding a matter back to the adjudicating authority, to ensure finality and avoid multiplicity of hearings.
• Observed that, the Appellate Authority can and must consider the taxpayer’s reply, the original adjudication, all evidence and statements, and decide the case on merits as a plenary first appeal.
• Dismissed the challenge filed under Section 151 of the CPC and clarified that the Petitioner could seek redress for non-consideration of reply and evidence in full appellate proceedings under Section 107(11).

Our Comments:

This case affirms that the Appellate Authority is not a mere reviewer but operates as a true first appellate tribunal capable of correcting all errors and omissions of fact and law from the adjudication stage under Section 107(11). The embargo on remand is meant to secure finality and efficiency and not limit the scope of appellate fair hearing or re-evaluation of all material. The judgment harmonizes with the Delhi High Court judgement in Additional Director General (Adjudication) Versus M/s. Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. - 2020 (6) TMI 72 - DELHI HIGH COURT which while dealing with a parallel provision i.e., Section 129B of the Customs Act, has not only held that the expressions ‘confirm, modify or annul the decision or order’ have wide amplitude, but also encouraged the Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits, wherever possible.

Relevant Provision:

Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017:

“107. Appeals to Appellate Authority—

(11) The Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order:

Provided that an order enhancing any fee or penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscating goods of greater value or reducing the amount of refund or input tax credit shall not be passed unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order:

Provided further that where the Appellate Authority is of the opinion that any tax has not been paid or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised, no order requiring the appellant to pay such tax or input tax credit shall be passed unless the appellant is given notice to show cause against the proposed order and the order is passed within the time limit specified under section 73 or section 74.”

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])