GST Appellate Authorities Don’t Have Power To Remand Cases Back To Lower Tax Officers For Fresh Decision Once An Appeal Is Filed: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) has no power to remand matters back to the adjudicating authority. The Court set aside multiple remand orders passed in a refund dispute involving a leading law firm. The bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that the issue was no longer res integra and referred to an earlier decision involving the same petitioner in Anand & Anand (Law Firm) vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST (decided on 04.09.2025). In that case, the Court had categorically held that the Appellate Authority cannot remand matters in view of the express statutory bar. The petitioner, a renowned law firm registered under GST at Noida, provides legal services to both domestic and foreign clients. It claimed that it had rendered services to foreign clients and received consideration in convertible foreign exchange, thereby qualifying as “export of services” under GST law. For the period March 2021 to August 2021, the firm filed refund applications under Section 54 of the CGST Act in Form GST RFD-01, seeking refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) on export of services without payment of tax. However, the department issued system-generated communications (RFD-08) alleging that the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) reflected that services were rendered in India, and therefore, the remittance was not related to export of services. The refund claims were subsequently rejected through Orders-in-Original dated 31.10.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida. By orders dated 30.04.2024 (Leading Petition), 28.06.2024 (Connected C1), and 31.05.2024 (Connected C2 and C3), the Appellate Authority recorded findings in favour of the petitioner on the fulfillment of export conditions. However, despite these favourable findings, the authority remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for redetermination of the “place of supply” after examining documents. The petitioner challenged the remand portion of these appellate orders before the High Court. The central question before the Court was whether the Appellate Authority has the power to remand matters under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act. Section 107(11) expressly states that the Appellate Authority may confirm, modify, or annul the decision appealed against “but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority.” The Revenue argued that since the GST Tribunal is now functional, the petitioner should avail the alternate remedy of appeal. However, when queried by the Court, the Revenue conceded that there is no statutory provision enabling remand under Section 107(11). The Court also relied upon the Division Bench ruling in Kronos Solutions India (P.) Ltd., wherein it was held that once the statute restricts appellate powers to confirming, modifying, or annulling the order, no inherent power of remand can be exercised. The High Court observed that despite recording findings in favour of the petitioner regarding fulfillment of export conditions, the Appellate Authority had still remanded the matter, which was contrary to the statutory mandate. While the Revenue contended that the petitioner should approach the GST Tribunal, the Court declined to relegate the petitioner to an alternate remedy. It held that since the appellate authority had acted beyond jurisdiction by ordering remand in violation of Section 107(11), the writ petitions were maintainable. Allowing the writ petitions, the Court set aside the portion of the appellate orders dated 30.04.2024, 28.06.2024, and 31.05.2024 that remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority. The court directed the Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law within two months. Case Details Case Title: M/S Anand And Anand (Law Firm) Versus The Principal Commissioner Central Goods & Services Tax Citation: JURISHOUR-23-HC-2026(All) Case No.: WRIT TAX No. - 852 of 2026 (Leading) Date: 16/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Shubham Agrawal Counsel For Respondent: Amit Mahajan, Dhananjay Awasthi Click Here To Read Order Read More: JurisHour | Tax Law Daily Bulletin : February 18, 2026

GST Appellate Authorities Don’t Have Power To Remand Cases Back To Lower Tax Officers For Fresh Decision Once An Appeal Is Filed: Allahabad HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 12 AUGUST, 2026

Electrocution Compensation Claims Involving Disputed Facts Can’t Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 12 AUGUST, 2026

Electrocution Compensation Claims Involving Disputed Facts Can’t Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

About us

Company

Categories