Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Mumbai - Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 12528 of 2025
Decided On : 30-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. decision-making process and final order of the court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to gst demand order (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments on non-application of mind (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on decision-making (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. cut-and-paste rationale in orders (Para 9 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. order quashed and remanded (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. rule made absolute (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 24 February 2025, issued by the First Respondent, to the extent that it confirms the GST demand of Rs.70,57,98,2018/- for the period April 2020 - March 2021.
4. Mr. Shah, learned senior advocate for the Petitioner, at the outset submitted that the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind, non-consideration of detailed submissions canvassed by the Petitioner in its replies dated 27 January 2025 and 6 February 2025. He pointed out that the so-called reasoning in the impugned order is a verbatim copy of the statements in the show cause notice dated 28 November 2024 at Exhibit-S. He handed in the chart to demonstrate that the so-called reasoning and findings are nothing but an exercise of cutting and pasting statements from the show cause notice. On this ground, Mr. Shah urged that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside without relegating the Petitioner to avail up the alternate remedy.
5. Ms. Tatake and Ms. Vyas submit that the above ground is not raised in the petition. They submit that the entire reply of the Petitioner has been reproduced and considered in the impugned order. Therefore, they submit that this is not a case of non-application of mind or passing of an unreasoned order.
6. Ms. Tatake and Ms. Vyas submit that the Petitioner has already preferred an appeal against an earlier order dated 1 April 2022 denying the Petitioner the refunds claimed. Therefore, they submit that the Petitioner should have followed the same course in this matter instead of challenging the impugned order directly before this Court.
7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the show cause notice dated 28 November 2024 and the replies filed by the Petitioner on 27 January 2025 and 6 February 2025, and the impugned order dated 24 February 2025. On a perusal of all these, we are satisfied that the adjudicating authority has failed to independently apply its mind to the various contentions raised in the replies filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Instead, the adjudicating authority has chosen to copy or rather cut and paste verbatim the allegations in the show cause notice dated 28 November 2024 to pass them of as reasons supporting the impugned order.
9. Mr. Shah handed in a chart, which establishes the above referred “cut and paste exercise”. The comparative chart is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:-
| Allegations in the Show Cause Notice dated 28.11.2024 (387) Ex. S | Findings in the Impugned Order dated 24.02.2025 (104) Ex. A |
(408) During the proceeding, in the course of examination of documents, discussion, etc. following facts/points were noticed: As per Article/Section 1.3 of the service agreement dated 24/08/2015, the contractor provides to the service provider, free of cost, designated software or hardware computer equipment (the technology) required to undertake the services which are specified to the contractor’s clients/project requirement. Such technology shall be returned on completion of the assignment upon request and shall at all times remain the property of the Contractor. (409) As per Section 5.1 of the service agreement dated 24/08/2015, any processes, specification, drawing, sketches, models, products, software, sample, tools, computers or other apparatus, programs, technical, |
AI
The court emphasizes the necessity for independent reasoning in administrative decisions, rejecting reliance on verbatim copies of prior notices, which violates natural justice principles.
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 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 central legal point established in the judgment is the need to examine the actual work performed by a party to determine its status under the IGST Act.
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
