Facts of the Case

Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “the Petitioner”) is an Indian company providing IT, content, software and related services to its overseas parent (Chegg Inc., USA). The Petitioner sought refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the claim that its services constituted zero‑rated export of services under the GST law.

The Petitioner filed multiple refund applications for different periods (including June 2020, February 2021, December 2020 and other months). In several cases, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the refunds, mainly holding that the Petitioner’s services were not exports or documentary proof was inadequate. The Appellate Authority largely upheld those rejections.

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders‑in‑appeal, contending that the refunds ought to have been granted on the basis of documentary evidence and consistent nature of services exported. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Petitioner’s services qualify as “export of services” under GST law for purposes of refund of unutilised ITC?
  2. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting refund claims on the grounds of documentary insufficiency, and whether it should have considered all periods together rather than in a staggered manner?
  3. Whether the powers of the Appellate Authority under Section 107(11) of the Central GST Act allow a fresh adjudication of factual matters including documentary evidence? 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The services provided by Chegg India constitute export of services and, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to refund of unutilised ITC under the GST regime.
  • Documentary evidence including agreements and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) were filed before the Adjudicating Authority; in some cases, additional documents were filed at the appellate stage.
  • The Appellate Authority erred in upholding rejections without considering all refund claims comprehensively and making contradictory findings on identical services and transactions. 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Appellate Authority contended that it could not entertain fresh documents at the appellate stage beyond the record of the Adjudicating Authority.
  • In individual cases, the refunds were rejected on the basis of lack of adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the export nature of services or non‑submission of corroborative documents.
  • The nature of services was contested, with the Respondent asserting that in some periods services did not qualify as export. 

Court Findings / Order

The High Court held:

  • Section 107(11) of the CGST Act clearly empowers the Appellate Authority to not only confirm or annul but also modify the order and take all actions permissible in a first appeal, including examination of evidence.
  • The impugned appellate orders were set aside and the matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication of refund claims in a comprehensive manner, taking into account all evidence and documentary material.
  • The Court directed that if the Petitioner wishes to file further documents before the Appellate Authority, it may do so within two months, and a fresh personal hearing must be granted. 

Important Clarification (Key Legal Principle)

Under Section 107(11) of the Central GST Act, the Appellate Authority’s power is co‑extensive with a first appeal, entitling it to consider fresh evidence and re‑evaluate factual foundations rather than merely acting as a forum for limited review.

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.