Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Excellence4u Research Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash certain orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims documents were not considered. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observes lack of documentation led to claims rejection. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. petitioner reiterates necessity of consideration of documents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. mistakes in rejecting claims without considering sufficient evidence. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
“Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the following orders:
a. Order No.ACCT (Audit) 4.5/DGSTO-4/S-74-56/23-24 dated 21.12.2023 by the respondent No.1 (Annexure A)
b. Order No: ZD290325100718D passed in proceedings No.GST.AP.493/2023-24 dated 21.03.2025 by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure B), c. Rectification Order No: ZD290325103133U passed in proceedings No. – GST.AP.493/2023-24 dated 29.03.2025 by the respondent No.2 (Annexure C), d. Rectification Order no.ZD2909251006761 in proceedings No.GST.AP.493/2023-24 dated 25.08.2025 by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-D)
And remand the matter back to the Respondent No.2 for a fresh consideration in the light of the documents produced at Annexure-J.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the partie
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 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 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 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 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 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
