The court established that failure to call for necessary documents does not warrant rejection of a refund claim and the Appellate Authority must consider additional evidence if not previously requested.

ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hirak R. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Archit P. Jani for the respondent.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to allow the present Petition;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed under section 107 of the Act and marked as Annexure-A;

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the refund sanctioning authority to consider the matter based on the facts and documents submitted and allow due refund amounting to Rs. 2,33,466/-;

D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass any further relief deemed just and proper to be granted.”

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing Engineering Parts for Plastic Processing Machinery for manufacturing of working rubber/plastic products with its principal place of business at Vadodara.

3.2. During the period November, 2023, the petitioner exported goods to three Countries namely USA, Germany and Israel upon payment of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (for short ‘the IGST’). The total IGST amount paid on export of the goods for the month of November, 2023 was Rs.2,33,466/-.

3.3. The petitioner thereafter filed a refund claim of the IGST paid under Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Rules’) as the exports was a zero rated supply.

3.4. The petitioner received a notice in Form GST RFD-08 dated 14^th February, 2024 to submit the details of GST invoices/bills of entries on the basis of which the ITC availed and utilised for payment IGST at the time of export of goods as it was suspected that the petitioner had availed the benefit of Notification No.79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017.

3.5. The petitioner furnished detailed reply dated 17^th February, 2024 in Form GST RFD-09 contending that the petitioner had not violated any of the conditions stipulated in Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules and furnished all the relevant documents such as invoices, bill of entry, packing list details etc.

3.6. The respondent however, by the order dated 26^th February, 2024 rejected the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner had availed the benefit of Notification No.79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017 resulting into violation of the Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules.

3.7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’). The Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 29^th January, 2025 rejected the Appeal invoking the provisions of Rule 112 of the CGST Rules while not permitting the petitioner to produce additional evidence as the petitioner submitted copies of EPCG Script and Bank Guarantee before the Appellate Authority which were not submitted before the Adjudicating Authority who rejected the refund application. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Hirak Shah for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not violated the provisions of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules and the petitioner is eligible for the refund in asmuch as, the goods imported by the petitioner by availing the benefit of EPCG Scheme as per the Circular No.79/2017 are capital goods and therefore, the same would fall under the exclusion part of the provisions of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules.

4.2. It was submitted that the petitioner provided the details of EPCG Script and the Bank Guarantee showing that the petitioner imported capital goods