FACTS OF THE CASE

• Petitioner Chegg India Pvt. Ltd., an EdTech company providing software & ITES services, filed multiple writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed on export of services (zero‑rated supply) under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

• The Petitioner’s refund applications relating to different tax periods (June 2020 to March 2021 etc.) were initially rejected by Adjudicating Authority and upheld by Orders‑in‑Appeal on grounds that services were not export of service or evidence was insufficient.

• Contradictory treatment was noted where some refunds were allowed for similar nature of services while others were rejected.

ISSUES INVOLVED

  1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to refund of unutilised ITC under the CGST Act on export of services.
  2. Whether the Appellate Authority can re‑adjudicate evidence and grant refunds in appeals under Section 107(11) CGST Act, 2017.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

• Chegg India contended that its business constitutes export of services eligible for ITC refund.
• The Petitioner argued that adequate documentary evidence including FIRCs and contracts were filed and should be considered.
• It was submitted that inconsistent findings among different periods — granting refund for some and rejecting for others — were irrational.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The Revenue argued that at appellate stage, the Appellate Authority cannot entertain new evidence or re‑adjudicate factual findings beyond scope of appeal.
• It was contended that rejection of refunds was justified due to lack of documentary evidence establishing export of services.

COURT’S ORDER / FINDINGS

• The Delhi High Court held that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 empowers the Appellate Authority to confirm, modify or annul original orders and carry out a fresh adjudication without remanding matters back.

• The contradictory approach adopted by adjudicating and appellate authorities across petitions requires comprehensive review.

• The impugned orders in all petitions were set aside and matters were remanded to the Appellate Authority to adjudicate fresh after considering all documentary evidence and hearing the Petitioner.

• Petitioner was permitted to file additional documents within 2 months. 

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS

The Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) CGST Act, 2017 has jurisdiction to review evidence afresh and not merely act as a supervisory forum.

Mere rejection in appeal on a narrow ground without adjudication of evidence is impermissible where statute allows modification/ annulment.

Consistent treatment of similar transactions across refund periods must be maintained or explained. 

SECTIONS INVOLVED

• Article 226 – Constitution of India
• Section 107(11) – Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75408092025CW117182025_105936.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.