Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Wind River Systems International Inc India Branch Office, Represented By Shri Jatheen Raveendran – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of gst demand notices. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court reviews precedent cases and agreements. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court emphasizes definition of intermediary services. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. further clarifications on intermediary definitions and implications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion and orders directing quashing of gst notices. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice No. 17/2025-26/GST/AC/ND2 dated 30.05.2025 bearing DIN 2025055700000000669E issued by the Respondent enclosed at Annexure-A demanding CGST, SGST, IGST (allegedly erroneously sanctioned refund of unutilized ITC) along with interest and penalty;
b) Hold that the disputed services supplied by the Petitioner to WRUSA in furtherance of the Market Development Services Agreement qualify as export of services i.e., zero rated supplies and consequently not liable to GST; and
c) Pass such further order(s) and
The court held that services provided do not constitute intermediary services, affirming that such services qualify as independent exports under the IGST Act.
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 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 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 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 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 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....
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....
Services provided do not qualify as intermediary services, thus no GST liability applies as per established legal definitions.
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
