Case Details: Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate (2025) 35 Centax 162 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pratibha M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri Karan Sachdeva, Somesh Jain & Ms Charu Trivedi, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Anurag Ojha, SSC, Dipak Raj, Shashank Kumar & Ms Garima Kumar, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an exporter of IT/ITES services to its overseas parent company, had filed refund applications for unutilized input tax credit. The jurisdictional adjudicating authority under CGST partly allowed and partly rejected the claims, and on appeal, the Appellate Authority also passed varying orders, rejecting some claims for absence of agreements or FIRCs while partly allowing others, resulting in contradictory outcomes for identical services. The petitioner sought a consolidated and fresh consideration of all refund applications along with additional evidence. The Department of Revenue contended that the Appellate Authority was not empowered to consider new material or re-adjudicate the matter. The matter was accordingly placed before the Delhi High Court.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that the Appellate Authority, under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the Delhi GST Act, is empowered to confirm, modify or annul any decision or order. Referring to Sonu Monu Telecom (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (2025) 33 Centax 149 (Del.) [2025] 176 taxmann.com 804 (Delhi), the Court observed that the refunds had been allowed or rejected based on the availability of documentary evidence and the nature of services exported, and inconsistent conclusions had been drawn on similar facts. It was held that fragmented adjudication of refund applications resulted in contradictory findings and partial grant of relief. Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a consolidated reconsideration of all refund applications together, instead of in a staggered manner.
List of Cases Cited
- Sonu Monu Telecom (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 33 Centax 149 (Del.)/[2025] 176 taxmann.com 804 (Delhi) — Referred [Para 11]
