https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775124 The HC held that the appellate authority under WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017 has competence to accept additional evidence under Rule 112(4), which permits production of documents or examination of witnesses despite sub-rule (1) restrictions. The court found that the appellate authority failed to consider this provision, rendering their order mechanical. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority with directions to permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the form of a certificate dated 10th August, 2024 issued by respondent no.6. The writ petition was disposed of by way of remand, requiring fresh consideration of the case with proper application of the evidence admission provisions. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 08:25:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775124 The HC held that the appellate authority under WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017 has competence to accept additional evidence under Rule 112(4), which permits production of documents or examination of witnesses despite sub-rule (1) restrictions. The court found that the appellate authority failed to consider this provision, rendering their order mechanical. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority with directions to permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the form of a certificate dated 10th August, 2024 issued by respondent no.6. The writ petition was disposed of by way of remand, requiring fresh consideration of the case with proper application of the evidence admission provisions. Case-Laws GST Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775124