Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Orders No-Fault Vaccine Compensation Policy
11 Mar 2026
Delhi Sessions Court Upholds Conviction Under Sections 354, 354A IPC on Victim's Sole Reliable Testimony Despite No CCTV
11 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Seeks Dileep Response in 2017 Assault Appeal
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Ernst And Young Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-ii, Delhi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner is an Indian Branch Office of M/s Ernst & Young Limited and has filed the present petition impugning an order-in-appeal dated 15.03.2022 (Order-in-Appeal No.311-313/2021-22) (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the Additional Commissioner of CGST Appeal-II (hereafter `the Appellate Authority'), whereby respective appeals preferred by the petitioner against orders-in-original dated 25.01.2020, 09.12.2020 and 21.05.2021 (hereafter `the impugned orders-in-original') passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division Vasant Kunj (hereafter `the Adjudicating Authority') were rejected.
2. The petitioner had appealed against the impugned orders-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority being aggrieved by the rejection of its refund applications for input tax credit (hereafter `ITC') in respect of export of services for the period from December 2017 to March 2020. The Adjudicating Authority had denied the said applications for refund of ITC on the premise that the petitioner is an `
The main legal point established is that the definition of 'intermediary' under the IGST Act does not include a person who provides services on his own account, and the determination of the place of ....
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of intermediary services and the scope of export of services under the relevant rules.
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
Listen Article