Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Mcdonalds India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals - Ii, Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)
1. M/s McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter `the petitioner') has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 14.02.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals - II, Delhi) rejecting the petitioner's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2020.
2. The petitioner is a company incorporated in India and is a subsidiary of McDonald's Corporation, USA (hereafter `McDonald's USA').
3. The petitioner had entered into a service agreement dated 01.01.1996 (hereafter `Service Agreement'), whereby the petitioner had agreed to perform certain services. The petitioner claims that it is an independent service provider for the services falling within the scope of the Service Agreement. The petitioner is entitled to a consideration on cost plus 10% mark-up basis for the services rendered under the Service Agreement. The petitioner claims that the services rendered by it to McDonald's USA are `zero rated supplies' under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `IGST Act').
4. The controversy in the present petition relates to the period of April 20
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 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 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 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 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 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
