The Gujarat High Court has set aside an appellate order that had rejected an Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund claim on the basis of an evidentiary technicality. 

The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi has directed the Appellate Authority to re-examine the matter afresh by considering the additional documents submitted by the taxpayer, including the EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) certificate.

The case pertained to a Vadodara-based engineering firm involved in the export of parts for plastic processing machinery to the USA, Germany, and Israel during November 2023. The company paid IGST amounting to ₹2,33,466 on such exports and subsequently filed for a refund, citing the exports as zero-rated supplies under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

However, the refund was rejected by the department citing violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, alleging the firm had availed benefits under Customs Notification No. 79/2017, thereby disqualifying it from IGST refund eligibility.

On appeal, the company presented its EPCG license and bank guarantee to prove that the imported goods were capital goods — which are excluded from the restrictions under Rule 96(10). The Appellate Authority, however, dismissed the appeal, refusing to consider the new evidence under Rule 112 of the CGST Rules on the ground that it had not been submitted earlier before the adjudicating authority.

The High Court observed that the EPCG certificate had not been called for during the adjudication stage and therefore should not have been excluded from consideration at the appellate level. Citing the provisions of Rule 112, the bench ruled that none of its exclusionary clauses (a to d) applied in this case since the petitioner was never asked to submit the EPCG documents earlier.

Setting aside the order, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the refund application in light of the additional evidence and deliver a fresh decision within 12 weeks.

Case Details

Case Title: Maxwell Engineering Solutions Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Excise

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6718 of 2025

Date:  04/07/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Hirak R. Shah

Counsel For Respondent: Archit P. Jani 

Read More: Lithium-Ion Batteries for Mobile Phones Attract 12% IGST, Not 28%: CESTAT