Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Cube Highways And Transportation Assets Advisor Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner CGST Division – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petitions impugning the orders passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent no.2) rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (respondent no.1).
2. The principal issue involved in these petitions are common. The controversy, essentially, relates to whether the services rendered by the petitioner to I Squared Asia Advisors Pte. Ltd., a company having its principal place of the business in Singapore (hereafter referred to as `I Squared') in terms of the Amended Support Service Agreement dated 06.06.2015 (hereafter `the Agreement') constitutes export of services. The petitioner claims that the services rendered by it are export of services because I Squared, the service recipient, is located overseas. However, the respondent authorities have held, on varying grounds, that services provided by the petitioner do not qualify as `export of services' as the place of supply of services is in India.
Factual Context
3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. It is engaged in the business of rendering investment advisory services related
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 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 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 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 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 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
