Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Kimberly Clark India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Of GST – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for writ reliefs regarding gst. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of refund application and show cause notice. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of previous judgments related to intermediary services. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a. issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 267/2023-24/ADC-AII/GST dated 05.01.2024 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 and Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021;
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) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to sanction refund of Rs. 1,34,23,507/-, being the IGST paid on support services exported to KCS for the period May 2020 along with applicable interest;
e) pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature
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.
Services provided do not qualify as intermediary services, thus no GST liability applies as per established legal definitions.
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 held that services provided do not constitute intermediary services, affirming that such services qualify as independent exports under the IGST Act.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's services did not qualify as 'Intermediary Services' and that the place of supply of services was not in India as per the rele....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the characterization of services as intermediary services under the IGST Act requires a careful analysis of the nature of the services provide....
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
