Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Ernst And Young Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-ii, Delhi – Respondent
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 `intermediary' and thus, the place of services is located in India, where the petitioner's place of business is located and not where recipient of services
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 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 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....
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.
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
