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 Grants Bail to Porsche Father in Swap Case
11 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Netgear Technologies India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner CGST Appeals I Delhi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an Order- in-Appeal (Appeal No.433/JC/Central Tax/App-I/Delhi/2019) dated 28.12.2021 ( hereafter `the impugned order'), passed by the Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals-I, Delhi), whereby the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 10.01.2020, passed by the Adjudicating Authority was rejected.
2. The petitioner claims that it is engaged in the business of exporting services to Netgear Pte. Ltd. without payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). The petitioner claims that since the supplies made are zero rated supplies, it is entitled to the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC). In this context, on 04.08.2020, the petitioner filed an application (ARN AA070820005153S), seeking refund of an amount of
3. The Adjudicating Authority (respondent no.2) issued a show cause notice dated 19.08.2020, inter alia, proposin
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 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 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 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 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 characterization of services as intermediary services under the IGST Act requires a careful analysis of the nature of the services provide....
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