TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reliefs : "A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to allow the present Petition; B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed under section 107 of the Act and marked as Annexure-A; C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the refund sanctioning authority to consider the matter based on the facts and documents submitted and allow due refund amounting to Rs. 2,33,466/-; D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass any further relief deemed just and proper to be granted." 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 13.10.2017 resulting into violation of the Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. 3.7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act'). The Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 29th January, 2025 rejected the Appeal invoking the provisions of Rule 112 of the CGST Rules while not permitting the petitioner to produce additional evidence as the petitioner submitted copies of EPCG Script and Bank Guarantee before the Appellate Authority which were not submitted before the Adjudicating Authority who rejected the refund application. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Hirak Shah for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not violated the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider the additional evidence as it is not in dispute that the petitioner had imported capital goods under the Notification No.79/2017 which is excluded from the purview of the application of the provisions of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Archit Jani for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has admittedly not produced the EPCG Certificate during the adjudication proceedings before the respondent and therefore, the refund claim was rightly rejected. It was further pointed out that the Appellate Authority has rightly invoked the provisions of Rule 112 of the CGST Rules as the petitioner has failed to point out that, in the facts of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the adjudicating authority or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the adjudicating authority or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or (d) where the adjudicating authority or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ....