Top Stories Additional Evidences in GST Appellate Tribunal Appeal: A Guide Under Rule 112 of Central GST Rules Rule 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, which outlines the conditions for submitting additional evidence before the Appellate Tribunal By Manu Sharma – On September 26, 2024 6:47 pm – 4 mins read When filing an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority or the GST Appellate Tribunal (GST) under the Goods and Services Tax Act, it is essential to understand and comply with the rules that govern such appeals. Whether you are appealing a GST dispute, ITC disallowance decision, or any other adjudicated matter, this rule provides critical guidelines for the admissibility of new evidence.

Restrictions on Additional Evidence Under Rule 112(1), the appellant is generally not allowed to present new evidence—whether oral or documentary—that was not introduced during the original proceedings before the adjudicating authority or the lower Appellate Authority. This restriction aims to maintain fairness and consistency by preventing the introduction of fresh evidence at a later stage unless justified by specific circumstances. Boost Your GST Skills: Master Notice Responses & Drafting – Enroll Now The rule ensures that the appellant cannot present new evidence merely to strengthen their case unless specific conditions are met, as outlined below: Exceptions in Allowing New Evidence Rule 112 provides a few exceptions where additional evidence may be admitted. These include: Refusal to Admit Evidence: If the adjudicating authority or lower appellate authority wrongfully refused to admit evidence that should have been accepted, the appellant can introduce that evidence at the Tribunal level (Rule 112(1)(a)). Sufficient Cause for Not Producing Evidence: If the appellant was unable to produce evidence due to a valid reason or unavoidable circumstances, they may introduce the evidence if:   – The adjudicating authority called for the evidence but the appellant was prevented from producing it (Rule 112(1)(b)).   –

The evidence is relevant to any ground of appeal but was not produced earlier due to sufficient cause (Rule 112(1)(c)). Lack of Opportunity: If the lower authority made an order without giving the appellant a fair chance to present relevant evidence, the Tribunal may allow the evidence to be introduced (Rule 112(1)(d)). Boost Your GST Skills: Master Notice Responses & Drafting – Enroll Now Each of these exceptions must be supported by a valid explanation or rationale for why the evidence was not submitted earlier. GST Appellate Tribunal’s Discretion in Accepting Additional Evidence Even when the appellant seeks to introduce new evidence under the allowed exceptions, the Appellate Tribunal must exercise discretion in admitting this evidence. According to Rule 112(2), the Tribunal is required to record the reasons in writing for admitting any additional evidence. This adds a layer of accountability and ensures that only justifiable evidence is accepted. Opportunity for Rebuttal Once additional evidence is admitted, the rules mandate that the adjudicating authority or an officer authorized by the authority must be given a fair chance to rebut or examine the new evidence. This involves two critical components: Examination of Evidence or Witness: The adjudicating authority must have the opportunity to review any new documents or question any witnesses introduced by the appellant (Rule 112(3)(a)).

Production of Rebuttal Evidence: The authority also has the right to produce its own evidence or witnesses to counter the appellant’s new submissions (Rule 112(3)(b)). Boost Your GST Skills: Master Notice Responses & Drafting – Enroll Now This ensures that the principles of natural justice are followed, allowing both parties to fully argue their cases in light of the new evidence. Tribunal’s Powers to Direct Evidence Under Rule 112(4), the Appellate Tribunal has inherent powers to direct the production of documents or witnesses, even if the parties themselves have not requested it. This power is designed to enable the Tribunal to reach a fair and just decision based on a complete examination of the facts. Practical Considerations When filing a tribunal appeal, appellants should take the following into account: It is important to present all available evidence during the initial stages of adjudication or at the first appellate level. Avoid relying on Rule 112 to introduce new evidence at the Tribunal stage unless truly unavoidable circumstances prevented you from presenting it earlier. If you intend to introduce new evidence at the Tribunal, be sure to document the reasons why it wasn’t produced earlier.

Whether the evidence was wrongfully excluded or you were unable to present it for valid reasons, these explanations will form the basis of your argument for admission. While Rule 112 allows for the submission of additional evidence, the bar for admission is high. Merely having new information is not enough; you must show why this evidence is critical and why it could not have been presented earlier. Both the Tribunal and the opposing party will examine your request to admit new evidence from both judicial and defensive perspectives. It is wise to be prepared to justify the relevance and admissibility of any such evidence clearly. Boost Your GST Skills: Master Notice Responses & Drafting – Enroll Now Even though the Tribunal has discretion, presenting new evidence late in the appeal process can result in delays or even rejections.

Ensure that any new evidence is introduced as early as possible, with proper explanations. Filing a tribunal appeal requires careful attention to procedural rules, particularly Rule 112 regarding additional evidence. While the rule sets strict limitations on the introduction of new evidence at the appellate stage, it also provides exceptions that can be leveraged in specific circumstances. Appellants must ensure that they comply with the requirements for admissibility and be prepared to justify any requests for introducing new evidence. This approach will help ensure that the appeal is heard on its merits while adhering to the principles of natural justice.