Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Kimberly Clark India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through Its Revenue Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, 128-A/North Block, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks writ against notices. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments focus on gst liability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
1. 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. 192-193/2021-22/JC-ALL/GSTN dated06.01.2022 passed by Respondent No.3 at Annexure-A
b) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the Show Cause Notice bearing DIN 20220657YW00077507D dated 27.06.2022 at Annexure-B issued by Respondent No.4 and the proceedings culminating thereto for recovering the refund of Rs. 1,53,35,499/- already sanctioned;
c) Hold that the support services provided by the Petitioner to KCS are not in the nature of intermediary' under Section2(13) of the IGST Act.
d) Hold that the support services provided by the Petitioner to KCS qualifies as 'export of service' under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.
e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.4 to sanction refund of Rs. 1,53,35,4
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 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....
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....
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
