TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25-26, both dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CX, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate (in short 'the first Appellate Authority'). The said appeals have been filed before the first Appellate Authority by the present respondent i.e., M/s Agarwala's Bitumex Private Limited under sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act against the Order-in-Original bearing Ref Nos. ZD190525049468V dated 28.05.2025 and ZD190625009380H dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Siliguri Division, Siliguri Commissionerate. 3. The brief facts as stated in the appeals are that the respondent i.e., M/s. Agarwala's Bitumex Private Limited (GSTIN 19ABACA8140P1Z9) situated at Holding No. 37/491/1/AB/8, Radha Bazar, Ground Floor, Thana More, S.F Road, Opposite Siliguri Thana, Ward No.8, Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal - 734004 is engaged in the supply of other bars and rods of iron or non-alloy steel, bitumen, etc. falling under HSN 7214 and 2714, respectively. Further, the respondent is also engaged in the export of the said goods out of India and claim refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (in short 'ITC') under Section 54 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26) involved in both the instant appeals whereas it has been noticed that all fourteen consignments have encountered their first toll crossing in Bihar instead of West Bengal which contradicted the declared dispatch location i.e., Dhandebi Khanna Road, Kolkata-700054. The first Appellate Authority erred in dismissing this material evidence by relying solely on the "bill-to ship-to" explanation without verifying the actual movement. The first Appellate Authority's reliance on the bill-to ship-to model is misplaced. While such routing may explain delivery to Jogbani, Raxaul and Sonauli, it cannot justify the absence of any movement from the declared dispatch point in West Bengal. Where all toll data shows entry and circulation only within Bihar/UP, the issue is not delivery routing but false origin declaration. Bill-to ship-to permits a different destination - it does not validate movement that never began from West Bengal, and therefore does not cure the fundamental discrepancy in the alleged supply chain. 6.3 That the impugned OIAs passed by the first Appellate Authority overlooked the finding that the respondent's immediate supplier M/s. KS Metals Pvt. Ltd. ('KSM') procured goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance alone does not establish actual receipt of goods, and ITC may be denied where supply is doubtful, fictitious or non-existent. Thus, the mandatory condition under Section 16(2)(b) has not been fulfilled. Refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3) is permissible only when such ITC is legitimately availed. Where the inward supply itself is doubtful or fictitious, no refund is admissible. 6.10 That the State GST has already issued SCN for fake ITC to M/s Simplex Natural Resources LLP (GSTIN:19AEQFS9121J1ZC) (in short 'Simplex') (the earlier unit of the respondent). Even the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (in short 'DGGI') had initiated investigation against 'Simplex'. The investigation initiated by the State GST Authorities was also transferred to the DGGI and it is alleged that the respondent is following the similar modus operandi followed in the earlier case also. 7. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Superintendent, CGST, Authorized Representative of the Revenue appeared through virtual mode and argued the case. He reiterated the facts and submissions which are already submitted in the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. We have heard the argument of the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng ITC. The respondent advised the supplier to handover the goods at the LCS at Jogbani. Hence, the supplier by complying the GST provisions raised tax invoice and e-way bill under the "BILL TO-SHIP TO" model. The e-way bills were issued by their supplier and the same was issued under "BILL TO SHIP TO" model wherein the Ship To location was given as LCS, Jogbani. The ship to address was given on the direction of the respondent so as to facilitate exports easily and also reduce the operational time and costs. The goods received at the ship to address is not disputed were subsequently exported therein and shipping bill copies and Export General Manifest (in short 'EGM') generated by the customs are a proof of the export done. 9.4 In support, the respondent further submitted that had the goods not been physically received, or if there had been no actual movement of goods, the subsequent export would not have been possible. This fact alone substantiates the genuine receipt and movement of the goods. The receipt of goods and further export completes the entire trade cycle. The respondent would like to highlight the fact that the e-way bills w.r.t the concerned invoices were generated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orter's certificate, and relevant bank statements reflecting the transaction details. The documents collectively substantiate the engagement of a registered GTA, the delivery of goods, and the subsequent export of the same. The respondent has taken all reasonable and necessary steps to establish the bona fide nature and authenticity of the transactions as well as the actual movement of goods. Accordingly, the allegations founded upon toll plaza movement are liable to be rejected in toto and the consequential denial of ITC deserves to be set aside. Further, GST law does not prescribe verification of toll plaza movements or data as a statutory condition for availment of ITC. The goods received at the ship to address were subsequently exported therein and shipping bill copies and EGM generated by the customs are a proof of the export done. 9.9 With regard to the issue of procurement of goods from their supplier namely M/s. KS Metals Pvt. Ltd. ('KSM') from two suppliers whose registrations were ab initio cancelled well before the occurrence of alleged transactions and accordingly this establishes that no actual goods were available for supply, making the ITC ineligible, as pointed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended that the Revenue has raised grounds to appeal in addition to the discrepancies or allegations raised earlier in the SCN and the impugned OIOs or before the first Appellate Authority. The respondent wishes to refer to Rule 45(1) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025 which puts a complete embargo over the right to produce additional evidences and provides that the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce any additional evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Appellate Tribunal. Rule 45(1) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules is being reproduced for brevity: "45(1) The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce any additional evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Appellate Tribunal". 9.13 Further, the producing of additional evidence has been restricted/barred under Rule 112 (1) of the CGST Rules 2017 as well. The relevant text of the same is reproduced: "The appellant shall not be allowed to produce before the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of the proceedings before the adjudicating authority or, as the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have advanced their arguments which have already been covered in the Grounds of Appeal. 11. Discussion and Findings 11.1 We have carefully heard the arguments of parties and examined the records minutely and also perused the show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the Petitioner authority. From the show causes, it is admitted that the duty has been paid by the respondent which is clearly reflecting from the documents viz., GSTR-1, GSTR 2B and GSTR 3B. Refund application filed in Form GST RFD 01 has been verified by the Department. It is also not in dispute by the Department that goods have not been exported. The first dispute raised by the Department is that the goods purchased by the petitioner from M/s. K.S. Metal have not been dispatched from West Bengal. This fact has been mentioned in the SCNs at para 2(c). Another dispute has been raised in the same para regarding purchase of the goods by M/s KS Metals Private Limited from two suppliers namely M/s. Bhadra Enterprises and M/s. Maa Kali Traders whose GST Registrations having been ab initio cancelled. The Department has raised only these two objections in their show cause notices. 11.2 The first dispute raised in the SCNs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent has placed his reliance on the judgement of M/s. Raghuvansh Agro Farms Limited Vs. State of UP (2026)38 Centax 53 (All) (17-12-2025) (Writ Tax No.3829 of 2025) passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The Hon'ble Court have observed in paragraphs 28 and 29 which is reproduced as below: "28. Further the record shows that purchases and sales are being duly reflected in the GST portal supported by tax invoices, e-way bill and bilty and all payments were made through banking channels. The supporting ledgers were also brought on record, which clearly shows that due purchases have been made as well as actual physical movement of the goods has been taken place and no case of circular trading is made out in favour of the petitioner. 29. Further, an inference has been drawn against the petitioner that the petitioner has failed to submit the toll plaza receipts in order to justify the actual physical movement of the goods. The said finding is patently or apparently perverse and is without any basis. The revenue has failed to bring on record any provision or rule under the GST Act as well as Rules, which compel the assessee to file toll plaza receipts in supp....