Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
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
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Past Licenses and Undertaking Prove Knowledge of Copyright License Need, Warrant Ad-Interim Injunction: Bombay HC
13 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Ohmi Industries Asia Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, CGST – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.09.2021 (Order-in-Appeal No. 342/JC/Central Tax/Appl-I/Delhi/2020) rejecting the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 26.11.2019 (Order-in-Original No.151/DIV-NP/GST/REFUND/2019-20). Although the petitioner has statutory right of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner cannot avail the same as the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted.
2. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to entertain the present petition.
3. The controversy involved in the present petition relates to whether denial of integrated tax is justified on the ground that the petitioner is an intermediary.
4. The petitioner is a company incorporated in India and provides services to an affiliated entity, OHMI Industries Ltd., Japan (hereafter `OHMI, Japan'). The petitioner had entered into two separate agreements with OHMI Ja
The main legal point established is that the concept of intermediary services requires a minimum of three parties, and the petitioner, in providing services directly, did not meet the definition of a....
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.
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 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 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....
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