Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner was a GST-registered law firm, was engaged in providing legal services to both domestic and foreign clients and received consideration in convertible foreign exchange. It filed refund claims of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 54 of the CGST Act for the period March 2021 to August 2021 on account of export of services without payment of tax. The refund applications were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that, based on the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC), the services were treated as having been rendered in India and therefore did not qualify as export of services.

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority, which recorded findings in favour of the petitioner that the conditions for export of services were satisfied. However, despite such findings, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of the place of supply. Challenging the legality of such remand orders, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act has the power to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, especially in light of the express bar under Section 107(11). 

Held that:

The High Court held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act does not possess the power to remand matters to the adjudicating authority. It emphasized that Section 107(11) expressly restricts the powers of the Appellate Authority to confirming, modifying, or annulling the order appealed against and specifically prohibits remand.

The Court observed that once the Appellate Authority had recorded findings in favour of the petitioner regarding fulfillment of export conditions, it was incumbent upon it to adjudicate all remaining issues, including the determination of place of supply, on merits. The act of remanding the matter for fresh determination was held to be contrary to the statutory mandate and legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the remand portion of the appellate orders and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeals afresh on merits within a period of two months.

Case name: Anand and Anand (Law Firm) v. Principal Commissioner Central Goods & Services Tax dated 16.02.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 472