2026 (3) TMI 577 - HC - GST

Procedural fairness and fresh evidence require remand for reconsideration of TRAN credit rejections, permitting Authority to reassess supporting records.

Petition concerns rejection of TRAN credits where adjudicating orders relied on non matching input quantities/values and absence of detailed stock and ... Rejection of Tran-1 and TRAN 2 - quantity and value inputs are not matching with the TRAN credit availed - invoice/documents evidencing payment of tax carried forward to Electronic Credit Ledger in support of that credit availed was not produced -absence of certain documents - remand for fresh consideration. Failure to consider material evidence - HELD THAT:- The Court recorded that the Adjudicating Authority's orders observed mismatches and rejected TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 without having considered certain documents that the petitioner produced contemporaneously or at the hearing remitted by the Court. The petitioner appeared before the Authority and filed copies of documents and minutes of proceedings; thereafter the Authority sought further certified records (CA-certified closing stock, purchase invoices and sales register for the specified period). In view of the production lacuna and the Authority's subsequent request for certified documents, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters to respondent No.1 for reconsideration, leaving all contentions open. [Paras 10, 11] Impugned orders set aside and matters remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration with liberty to the petitioner to produce the requisite records; all contentions kept open. Final Conclusion: The High Court set aside the Orders-in-Original rejecting TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 and remitted the matters for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority, permitting the petitioner to produce relevant records and preserving all contentions. Issues: Whether the Order in Originals rejecting TRAN 1 and TRAN 2 for the period July 2017 to March 2022 should be set aside and the matters remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration in view of documents and records subsequently produced by the petitioner.Analysis: The adjudicating orders recorded non matching of quantity and value of inputs with TRAN credit availed and noted absence of detailed stock registers and supporting invoices. Subsequent to the impugned orders, the petitioner produced documents before the Authority (including materials referred to at Annexure E) and the Authority sought CA certified closing stock, purchase invoices and sales register for part of the relevant period. The petitioners were afforded an opportunity to satisfy the Authority by producing supporting records and the Authority has invited further certified copies to verify the claims. In these circumstances, the procedural fairness requirement and the need to consider additional material produced after the original orders warrant setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matters for fresh adjudication so that the Authority may examine the newly produced evidence and decide on the validity of the TRAN credits.Conclusion: The impugned Order in Originals rejecting TRAN 1 and TRAN 2 are set aside and both matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law; all contentions are left open.