Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Kimberly Clark India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court grants partial relief and directs further proceedings. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner not an intermediary under igst act. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. defines relationship and criteria for intermediary services. (Para 4) |
ORDER :
1. In this petition the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice No.54/2025-26 dated 25.06.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 at Annexure-A.
b) Hold that the support services provided by the Petitioner to KCS are not in the nature of 'intermediary' under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.
c) Hold that the support services provided by the Petitioner to KCS qualifies as 'export of service' under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.
d) Hold that the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act in the present facts and circumstances is factually and legally unsustainable.
e) Hold that the impugned consolidated show cause notice issued for multiple assessment years is bad in law;
f) Pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various
Services provided do not qualify as intermediary services, thus no GST liability applies as per established legal definitions.
The Court determined that the services provided by the petitioner do not constitute intermediary services under the IGST Act but qualify as export of services, leading to the quashing of the impugned....
The petitioner is not an intermediary under the IGST Act; their services qualify as export rather than intermediary services, exempting them from GST liability.
The court held that services provided do not constitute intermediary services, affirming that such services qualify as independent exports under the IGST Act.
The services provided were not intermediary services but on a principal-to-principal basis, justifying the refund of unutilized input tax credit as the denial was arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
The court ruled that the tax authority's reliance on non-submitted documents to reject a GST refund claim was improper, requiring reconsideration of evidence validating export service transactions.
The court emphasized that for services to qualify as 'export of services', authorities must accurately ascertain the petitioner's role as an intermediary, citing inadequate findings in previous rulin....
The appellant providing data hosting services is deemed not an intermediary but a service provider, thus qualifying the services as exports exempt from service tax obligations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
