The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Anand and Anand (Law Firm) v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors. [Writ Tax No. 852 of 2026 along with Writ Tax Nos. 859 of 2026, 861 of 2026 and 860 of 2026, order dated February 16, 2026] held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not possess the power to remand matters to the adjudicating authority, and therefore the appellate orders remitting the matter for reconsideration were unsustainable in law.
Facts:
M/s Anand and Anand (Law Firm) (“the Petitioner”), a renowned law firm registered under GST at Noida and engaged in the profession of law catering to domestic and foreign clients, received convertible foreign exchange for legal services rendered to foreign clients and claimed the benefit of export of services under the Foreign Trade Policy and the GST regime.
The Petitioner filed refund applications under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 through Form GST RFD-01 for the period March 2021 to August 2021 claiming refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on export of services supplied without payment of tax. Along with the applications, the Petitioner submitted documents including details of ITC, remittance certificates, FIRC copies and letters of undertaking.
The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors. (“the Respondents”), through the GST portal, issued system-generated communications treated as show cause notices in Form RFD-08, alleging that the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) mentioned that the services were rendered in India, thereby suggesting that the remittance was not related to export of services.
The Petitioner filed replies to the notices on October 19, 2023. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner passed Orders-in-Original Nos. 494 to 499 dated October 31, 2023, rejecting the refund claims.
The Petitioner preferred appeals before the Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida on January 31, 2024. The Appellate Authority, by order dated April 30, 2024, recorded findings in favour of the Petitioner that the conditions for export of services were fulfilled, but nevertheless remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to redetermine the place of supply after examining documents.
The Respondent contended that since the GST Appellate Tribunal had become operational, the Petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by the appellate orders remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority despite the statutory prohibition under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, the Petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 has the power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication?
Held:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 852 of 2026 along with Writ Tax Nos. 859 of 2026, 861 of 2026 and 860 of 2026 held as under:
- Observed that, the appellate order dated April 30, 2024 recorded findings in favour of the Petitioner regarding fulfilment of the conditions for export of services but nevertheless remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to redetermine the place of supply.
- Noted that, Section 107(11) of the CGST Act expressly provides that the Appellate Authority may confirm, modify or annul the decision appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority.
- Observed that, the statutory language creates a mandatory bar on remand by the Appellate Authority.
- Noted that, the Court had earlier considered the same issue between the same parties in Anand & Anand (Law Firm) v. Principal Commissioner of CGST [Writ Tax No. 1263 of 2023, decided September 4, 2025] where it was held that the Appellate Authority cannot remand matters to the adjudicating authority.
- Noted that, the Revenue could not point to any statutory provision permitting remand by the Appellate Authority.
- Observed that, since the orders of the appellate authority remanded the matter contrary to the statutory bar, such orders could not be sustained.
- Held that, the objection of the Revenue that the Petitioner should approach the GST Tribunal was not acceptable in the circumstances.
Our Comments:
The judgment relies upon Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, which restricts the appellate authority’s powers to confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against, and explicitly prohibits remand. The Court reaffirmed the statutory interpretation that the appellate authority must itself adjudicate the matter instead of sending it back to the adjudicating authority.
In Kronos Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024:AHC:16550-DB] the Allahabad High Court, the Division Bench held that the statute explicitly prescribes three options i.e confirm, modify or annul, and therefore the appellate authority cannot exercise any inherent power to set aside the order and remand the proceedings, because the legislature has expressly prohibited remand under Section 107(11). The reasoning emphasised that the statutory language leaves no residual jurisdiction for remand.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
“107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-
(11) The Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order:
Provided that an order enhancing any fee or penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscating goods of greater value or reducing the amount of refund or input tax credit shall not be passed unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order:
Provided further that where the Appellate Authority is of the opinion that any tax has not been paid or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised, no order requiring the appellant to pay such tax or input tax credit shall be passed unless the appellant is given notice to show cause against the proposed order and the order is passed within the time limit specified under section 73 or section 74 or section 74A”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
