Imagine you win an appeal on merits — the Appellate Authority agrees that you fulfilled export conditions — but instead of deciding your case, it sends the matter back to the original officer.

That is exactly what happened here.

The High Court said clearly:

Appellate Authority has NO power to remand the case back under Section 107(11).

Anand And Anand (Law Firm) vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST & Others (2026) – Allahabad High Court

Court: Allahabad High Court
Case: Anand And Anand (Law Firm) vs. Principal Commissioner CGST & Others
Date: 16 February 2026
Core Issue: Can the GST Appellate Authority remand a case back to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 107(11) of CGST Act, 2017?

“Won the appeal… but sent back again?”

If your GST appeal is allowed on merits but still remanded to the same officer, this blog is for you.

In 2026, the Allahabad High Court once again clarified that GST Appellate Authorities cannot remand matters back under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act.

Let us understand why this matters.

Under GST, dispute resolution structure is:

1. Proper Officer (Adjudication)
2. Appellate Authority (Section 107)
3. GST Tribunal
4. High Court

Earlier, under many pre-GST laws (like Central Excise, Service Tax), appellate authorities had remand powers.

But the GST law was consciously drafted differently.

Overview of Section 107(11) – CGST Act, 2017

Section 107(11) states:

The Appellate Authority shall pass an order:

• Confirming
• Modifying
• Annulling

BUT

Shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority.

That line creates a mandatory statutory bar.

It is not optional. It is not discretionary.

It is absolute.

Breaking Down the Key Words

“Confirm”

Means uphold the order fully.

Example: Demand was valid → confirmed.

---

“Modify”

Means partially change.

Example: Reduce penalty, adjust tax amount.

---

“Annul”

Means completely set aside.

Example: Refund wrongly rejected → annulled.

---

“Shall Not Refer Back”

This is the most important part.

“Shall” = mandatory
“Not” = absolute prohibition

There is no discretion left.

What Happened in This Case?

The petitioner (a reputed law firm) filed refund claims under Section 54 for export of services.

Appellate Authority:
✔ Accepted that export conditions were fulfilled
Yet remanded the matter to examine the place of supply

The petitioner challenged the remand portion.

The Revenue argued:

GST Tribunal is functional now — go there.

Court’s response:

When law clearly bars remand, we will not force you to Tribunal.

Lead Case (2026)
Anand And Anand (Law Firm) vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST & Others (2026)
Court: Allahabad High Court
Date: 16 February 2026
The Court held:
✔ Section 107(11) creates a mandatory bar on remand
✔ Appellate Authority must decide itself
✔ Tribunal existence does not cure jurisdictional error
✔ Remand portion of order set aside

Earlier Important Case Laws on the Same Issue

Kronos Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (2024)

Kronos Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
Division Bench – Allahabad High Court

Held:

• Appellate Authority only has three options:
  • Confirm
  • Modify
  • Annul
• It cannot remand
• Legislature has explicitly barred remand

The Court clearly said:

No inherent power survives when statute prohibits remand.

This became the foundation for later rulings.

Anand & Anand (Law Firm) vs. Principal Commissioner CGST (2025)

Anand & Anand (Law Firm) v. Principal Commissioner CGST

Same assessee. Same issue.

High Court held:

• Remand by Appellate Authority is illegal
• Appeal must be decided on merits
• Writ maintainable since Tribunal not functioning

This judgment was specifically relied upon in the 2026 case.

Trend Across High Courts

Several High Courts have taken similar view that:

✔ When statute uses “shall not”, it is mandatory
✔ Appellate Authority must exercise full adjudicatory powers
✔ Remand defeats objective of speedy dispute resolution

Comparative Analysis with Earlier Judgments

Issue	Pre-GST Era	Under GST
Remand Power	Frequently exercised	Specifically barred
Legislative Language	Allowed flexibility	Explicit prohibition
Judicial Trend	Remand common	Courts striking down remand

Recent High Courts including Allahabad have consistently held:

✔ No remand power
✔ Appellate Authority must decide itself
✔ Findings in favour + remand = contradictory

Legislative Analysis – Section 107(11) Explained Simply

Section 107(11) says:

Appellate Authority may confirm, modify or annul —
BUT shall not refer the case back.

This shows legislative intent:

Before GST — remand was common
After GST — remand is prohibited

This is not accidental. It is deliberate reform.

Why Legislature Removed Remand Power?

Think practically.

If remand was allowed:

• Same officer re-examines same issue
• Taxpayer faces repeated notices
• Refunds delayed for years

GST intended:

✔ Faster disposal
✔ Certainty
✔ Accountability at appellate level

Practical Illustration-

Suppose:

• Refund rejected
• You appeal
• Appellate Authority agrees export conditions fulfilled
• But says: “Re-examine documents, remanded”

This is illegal under Section 107(11).

Instead, authority must:

✔ Call documents itself
✔ Conduct inquiry
✔ Pass final decision

Interpretation Based on Judicial Rulings

From combined reading of:

• Kronos (2024)
• Anand & Anand (2025)
• Anand & Anand (2026)

The legal position is:

1. Remand power is expressly removed
2. Appellate Authority must conduct further inquiry itself
3. If documents insufficient — call them
4. But do not shift responsibility
5. Remand = jurisdictional error

Practical Implications for Businesses

If you are:

• Exporter claiming refund
• ITC claimant
• Facing adverse GST order

Now you know:

✔ If appellate order remands → challenge it
✔ Strong writ ground available
✔ Avoid repetitive adjudication
✔ Faster closure of disputes

Directors and CFOs must instruct tax teams:

Check appellate orders carefully.

Can Tribunal Remand?

Yes — GST Tribunal has wider powers under Section 113.

But Section 107(11) specifically restricts first appellate authority.

Core Principles Emerging from This Judgment

1. Statutory bar is mandatory
2. Appellate Authority must apply its own mind
3. If evidence is insufficient — conduct further inquiry itself
4. Cannot shift burden back to adjudicating officer
5. Writ maintainable even if Tribunal exists (when jurisdictional error is clear)

Practical Implications for Directors & Companies

If you are:

• Exporter claiming refund
• ITC litigant
• Facing GST appeal

This judgment gives you:

✔ Protection from unnecessary litigation loops
✔ Faster resolution
✔ Strong ground to challenge remand orders
✔ Jurisdictional writ remedy

If Appellate Authority remands your case — you now have a clear High Court precedent.

Way Forward

Going forward:

• Expect more writ petitions on remand issue
• GST Tribunal may also adopt same view
• Department must train appellate officers
• Businesses should preserve this judgment

This judgment strengthens procedural fairness

Friendly Closing :-

See dear friend,

GST litigation is not only about tax.
It is about procedure.
And sometimes procedure wins the case.

When law says “shall not remand” —
No authority can override Parliament.

Related reads on financekibaatein:-

Blog on Section 75 – Principles of Natural Justice Section 75 of CGST Act Explained: Why GST Orders Are Being Quashed for Violation of Natural Justice (2026 Update)”

Blog on High Court quashing GST orders for procedural violationSection 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 – When GST Demands Collapse Due to Procedural Lapses (2026 High Court Rulings Explained)

FAQ Section :-

Q1. Can Appellate Authority remand GST cases?

No. Section 107(11) bars remand.

Q2. What if Tribunal is functioning?

Jurisdictional error can still be challenged.

Q3. Is this binding across India?

Binding in UP. Persuasive elsewhere.

Q4. Why was remand removed under GST?

To ensure faster dispute resolution.

Q5.Is remand absolutely barred?

Yes, at first appellate stage under Section 107(11).

---

Q6. Can Appellate Authority conduct further inquiry?

Yes, but must decide itself.

---

Q7. What if the Tribunal is functioning?

Tribunal may have remand power, but first appellate authority does not.

---

Q8. Is this binding across India?

Binding within respective High Court jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere.