M/s HIGH PERFORMANCE PLASTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II & ANR. – Bombay High Court
High Court, Bombay
G.S. Kulkarni, Justice & Aarti Sathe, Justice
M/s HIGH PERFORMANCE PLASTICS INDIA PVT. LTD.
v.
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II & ANR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3622 of 2024 & WRIT PETITION No. 3526 of 2024 dated 09.04.2026
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017
Rule Number : Rule 112
Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017
Decision : In favour of assessee
Rejection of refund – SEZ – Appeal order refused endorsement certificates as additional evidence – Rule 89(1) CGST Rules mandates SEZ officer endorsement on export documents for refund eligibility – Appellate authority rejected evidence citing Rule 112 prohibition – Rule 112(1) permits additional evidence in four exceptions: refused admission, sufficient cause preventing production, relevant to appeal grounds, or no opportunity given – Held: Appellate authority misapplied Rule 112 exceptions – Order set aside – Matter remanded for reconsideration of additional evidence within 8 weeks.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mahir Chablani, Dimpal Jangid & Prasad Avhad i/b. Kuldeep Nikam
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member