The appellate authority must judiciously exercise discretion to admit additional evidence relevant to the case to ensure justice, even if not presented at the original hearing.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated June 7, 2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Siliguri Appeals Commissionerate in GAPPL/ADC/GSTD/50/2021/Slg-Appeal thereby setting aside the Refund Sanction Order dated December 3, 2020 in Form GST RFD-06 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jalpaiguri Division for an amount of Rs. 27,80,898/-.

2. Petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of wholesale and distribution of plastic items and trading and export of cigarettes and tobacco products.

3. Petitioner had exported “goods” without payment of tax to Bhutan during the month of August 2000 and on such account, certain amounts of Input Tax Credit (for short “ITC”) was accumulated in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner. Petitioners filed a Refund Application in the common portal praying for refund of Accumulated ITC. The Sanctioning Authority issued a Refund Sanction Order dated 03.12.2020 and the amount so sanctioned was paid to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said Refund Sanction Order, the 4th respondent herein, on behalf of the Revenue, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority being the 2^nd respondent herein praying for setting aside the Refund Sanction Order on the ground that an amount of Rs. 27,80,898.00/- has been erroneously sanctioned in excess in contravention of the provisions of law.

4. The ground on which the appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Appellate Authority was that the copies of the “Shipping Bills” are to be mandatorily uploaded along with the application for refund and the petitioner failed to upload/submit copies of the relevant manual Shipping Bills as “Proof of Export” in respect of two consignment and the sanctioning authority without verifying relevant manual Shipping Bills sanctioned an amount of refund higher than the amount actually admissible.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not upload/submit copies of the manual Shipping Bills in relation to 2(two)consignments and the Refund Sanction Order has been passed inspite of absence of the “Proof of Export” document.

6. Record reveals that before the Appellate Authority, petitioner submitted the copies of 02(two) manual Shipping Bills for the purpose of verification and consideration.

7. Petitioner prayed for accepting the said documents as an additional evidence by the appellate authority.

8. The appellate authority, by the order impugned, set aside the Refund Sanction Order dated December 3, 2020 upon observing that the manual shipping bills produced by the petitioner in course of the appeal are not admissible for consideration as the same were not presented before the original refund sanctioning authority.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the shipping bills were generated manually, the same could not be uploaded in the concerned portal. He, however, submits that in reply to the show-cause notice issued by the concerned authority, the petitioner has produced the manual shipping bills. Learned advocate further submits that the appellate authority is vested with the power to accept the manual „Shipping Bills‟ as additional evidence in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

10. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate representing the CGST authorities raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of existence of an appellate