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 notice denying refund.

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 and circumstances of the case may require."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the refund application dated 07.01.2021 submitted by the petitioner seeking refund of IGST for May 2020, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 01.02.2021 proposing to reject the entire refund claim of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 24.02.2021 to the show cause notice subsequent to which respondent No.2 passed the refund rejection order dated 25.02.2021 which was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the respondent No.1 Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed by the respondent No.1 Appellate Authority, vide impugned order dated 05.01.2024, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. The issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P. No. 22966/2025 dated 17.12.2025 in the petitioner's own case wherein this Court held as under:

"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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and on instruction submits that though the impugned show cause notice was issued by the respondent pursuant to audit objection/observation in relation to 16 issues, the challenge in the present petition may be restricted to audit objection/observation No.15 i.e., non payment of GST on intermediary services provided to M/s.Kimberly Clark Services, US incorporated which was the recipient of the services and in the light of the following judgments:

(a) M/s.Athene Technologies India LLP vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2025(6) TMI 88-Karnataka High Court.

(b) Nokia Solution & Networks India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax reported in 2025- VIL-415-KAR.

(c) M/s. Columbia Sportswear India So