Facts of the Case (Professional Narrative)

Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), a company engaged in software and content development services for its parent company outside India, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging multiple orders rejecting refunds of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

The Petitioner claimed that its services constituted zero‑rated export of services and sought refunds. The Tribunal and Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims, alleging that the services did not qualify as export due to lack of adequate documentary evidence. The Petitioner argued that the Orders under appeal were inconsistent and denied refunds without proper consideration of evidence.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the services provided by the Petitioner qualified as “export of services” under the CGST Act for the purpose of ITC refund?
  2. Whether the Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction to examine documentary evidence beyond the record before the Adjudicating Authority?
  3. Whether denial of refund on inconsistent grounds across similar periods amounts to unjust administrative exercise?

Petitioner’s Contentions

• The nature of services exported was identical across all refund periods, hence all refund claims should have been considered consistently.
• Documentary evidence, including agreements and inward remittance details (FIRC), was submitted in support of export claims.
• The Tribunal wrongly dismissed the claims by selectively considering or ignoring documentary evidence.
• Partial refunds granted in some appeals confirmed that the Petitioner’s services qualified for export benefits.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The Appellate Authority maintained that proper evidence was lacking for determining export of services.
• At the appellate stage, only the records and findings of the lower Adjudicating Authority could be considered.
• Accepting new evidence at appeal would amount to fresh adjudication beyond statutory mandate. 

Court Findings & Order

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, held that:

The Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 has the power to confirm, modify or annul the original order and examine all evidence afresh, subject to non‑remand limits.

The invoices, foreign inward remittance certificates (FIRCs), and agreements submitted indicated prima facie export of services — but the staggered findings by authorities led to inconsistent outcomes.

All impugned appellate orders were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on consolidated evidence.

Petitioner was permitted to file further relevant documents within two months.

Important Clarifications

The Court reinforced that the Appellate Authority under the CGST regime is not barred from re‑examining evidence if necessary.

Staggered and inconsistent adjudication on similar transactions was held to be improper.

The Court’s order supports uniform treatment of export service refund claims, enhancing legal clarity for GST export transactions.

Sections Involved (Statutory Reference)

  • Article 226 — Constitution of India (Writ Jurisdiction)
  • Section 107(11) — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Appellate Authority Powers)

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.