FEBRUARY 25, 2026

Remand: The Forbidden Fruit of Appeals

By Vijay Kumar

ANAND And Anand, a renowned Law Firm registered under GST at Noida engaged in the profession of law, catering to the demand of domestic and foreign clients is in writ petition before the Allahabad High Court against orders passed by CGST authorities. 'Anand & Anand', the law firm of repute, suddenly found themselves litigating not just law but logic.

As per the petitioner Law Firm,

1. They received convertible foreign exchange for the legal services rendered to foreign clients, on which they are entitled to and are availing export benefits as conferred by both Ministry of Commerce through Foreign Trade Policy and Ministry of Finance.

2. They filed a refund application under Section 54 of CGST Act 2017 online for the period from March 2021 to August 2021 separately for each month for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the export of services without payment of tax.

3. They also filed the requisite documents/ details such as detail of input tax credit (ITC), details of remittance certificate, FIRC copies from March 2021 to August 2021.

4. They received system generated separate e-mails alleging that on checking the FIRC it was found that the FIRC has mentioned towards the legal services rendered in India and therefore, it was alleged that remittance is not in relation to export.

5. They thereafter, on 19.10.2023, preferred replies against the notices. Thereafter, the petitioner received system generated separate e-mails about issue of RFD-06 regarding passing of the orders for each month.

Separate orders in original (OIO) No.494 to 499 all dated 31.10.2023 were passed rejecting the refund. The petitioner thereafter on 31.01.2024 filed separate appeals before the third respondent, Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida against each OIO no. 494 to 499 which were unsigned and undated passed by the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Noida.

On 30.04.2024, the respondent no.3, Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida passed an appellate order in favour of the petitioner regarding the condition for export of service fulfilled by the writ petitioner, yet remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for redetermining the place of supply of services to qualify as to whether the services of the writ petitioner as export of service after examining the document.

The Appellate Authority agreed the export conditions were met, then remanded anyway-like a referee who blows the whistle for a foul after applauding the goal.

It was a classic GST plot twist: the Authority said 'yes, you qualify,' then added 'but let's send you back to square one.'

It echoed the famous cricketing moment of BS Chandrasekhar in New Zealand. After a day of bad umpiring where all his lbw appeals were turned down, he finally clean-bowled a batsman and asked the umpire, 'Howzzat?' The umpire replied, 'He is bowled.' Chandrasekhar, exasperated, shot back: 'I know he is bowled, but is he out?'

In GST appeals too, the Authority seemed to know the service was exported, yet still asked if it was out.

Questioning the order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Appellate Authority, the writ petitions are filed. This was not a battle for refund-it was a battle against remand, the forbidden fruit of appeals.

The counsel for the writ petitioner argues that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in so far it relates to remanding the matter back to the Original Authority cannot be sustained, particularly when, there is no power or provision of remand.

In order to buttress the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the decision dated 04.09.2025 in Writ-Tax no.1263 of 2023, Anand & Anand (Law Firm) Vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services = 2026-TIOL-354-HC-ALL-GST, wherein provisions contained under Section 107(11) of CGST Act, 2017 came to be considered wherein it was found that the remand was unsustainable and the Appellate Authority was to itself decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law. That case was between this petitioner and the same respondents.

Countering the said submissions, the counsel for the Revenue submits that once the GST Tribunal is in operation, then it is always open for the writ petitioners to file an appeal before the said forum and the writ petitioner at the very first instance would not be maintainable.

However, on a pointed query being raised to the counsel for the respondents as to whether there is any provision for remand by the Appellate Authority, the answer is in negative.

The High Court noted that:

Apparently, the writ petitioners are questioning the appellate order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner, GST (Appeals) for various periods. Importantly, the appellate order dated 30.04.2024, deciding the appeals, notices and recites finding in favour of the writ petitioner regarding condition for export of services fulfilled by the writ petitioner. However, then too it remands the matter back to the adjudicating authority to redetermine the place of supply of services to qualify as whether the services of the petitioner and the export of services after examining the documents.

In the previous round of Anand and Anand vs Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services = 2026-TIOL-354-HC-ALL-GST, this very High Court had held:

The limited issue before this Court is in terms of sub-clause (11) of Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 whether Appellate Authority has power to remit the matter back to Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh?

Section 107(11) of the Act, 2017: -

107. Appeals to Appellate Authority. –

11. The Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order:

4. From plain reading of aforesaid Section, there is a mandatory bar for the Appellate Authority that cases shall not be remitted back to Adjudicating Authority who has passed the said decision or order.

5. In the light of aforesaid provision, Court also takes note of paragraph 17 and 18 of impugned order dated 27.09.2023 which are quoted below: -

"17. However, I find that in the instant case the respondent party has not produced any conclusive evidence viz. any agreement etc., therefore in absence of any such evidence available on record, it be appropriate to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to examine the place of provision of service in details with supporting documents. Needless to say, that the procedure of natural justice must be followed before passing any order.

18. In view of the foregoing, all the 09 appeals as listed in para 1 of this order as has been filed by the Department are allowed by way of remand with the directions to the adjudicating authority to re-determine place of supply of service to qualify as the service of respondent as "export of Service as per the provisions of law after examination of the documents by calling from the respondent party."

6. While passing aforesaid direction, Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals, NOIDA has not carefully perused the above referred sub-clause (11) of Section 107 of Act of 2017.

8. Accordingly, no other issue is required to be adjudicated at this stage. Once the appeal authority is seen to have failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law, such an order may never be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the appeal authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties afresh."

9. Learned counsel for respondents has not able to make any submission contrary to contents of above referred Clause (11) of Section 107.

10. In aforesaid circumstances, latter part of impugned order dated 27.09.2023 whereby matter has been remitted back to Adjudicating Authority is set aside and this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals, NOIDA shall decide the appeals filed in accordance with law.

The High Court in the present case held:

14. Since it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the matter could not have been remitted back to the adjudicating authority, thus in the opinion of the Court, it would not be appropriate to relegate the writ petitioner to approach the appellate authority, i.e. GST Tribunal.

16. Accordingly, the objection regarding relegating for preferring appeal before GST Tribunal is declined.

The Court, unimpressed, reminded the Authority that Section 107(11) is not a footnote but a full stop: "thou shalt not remand." The Court reminded everyone that the case was never about refund arithmetic-it was about appellate discipline. Remand was the trespass. In fact, the only thing remanded here was the Authority itself-sent back to its desk to read the law it had skipped.

The Court ordered on February 16, 2026: - 2026-TIOL-354-HC-ALL-GST

1. Later part of the judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 whereby matter has been remitted back to the adjudicating authority are set aside.

2. The writ petition is disposed of with an observation to the Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida to decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of two months.

Thus, refunds may be delayed, but remand is banned.

The only encore left is for the Authority to finally perform the role written in law, not the one improvised in remand.