SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
M/s. Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner Of Central Taxes And Central Excise - Respondent
WP(C) No. 30075 of 2024
Decided On : 08-06-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. G.Shivadass Sr. Advocate Sri.Shaji Thomas Sri.Jen Jaison Shri.Thomaskutty Sebastian
For the Respondent: Sri.P.T.Dinesh, Senior Central Govt. Counsel

An entity discharging tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism qualifies as the 'recipient' entitled to input tax credit. The Input Service Distributor mechanism was optional prior to legislative amendments; thus, distributing credit to branch units without such registration does not invalidate the claim.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 2(61), 2(93), 9(3), 16(2), 20, 24(viii), 31(3)(f) - Rules 36 and 39 of CGST Rules - Input Tax Credit - Eligibility under Reverse Charge Mechanism - Distribution of credit by business units - Whether registration as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) was mandatory prior to 2024 amendment.

(B) The entity liable to pay consideration and discharge tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism qualifies as the 'recipient' entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(2)(a) read with Rule 36. A self-invoice generated for reverse charge transactions serves as a valid tax-paying document for claiming credit. (Para 9.3)

(C) The Input Service Distributor (ISD) mechanism, as outlined in the unamended Section 20 of the Act, functioned as an optional facility for distributing credit. Prior to the 2024 legislative amendment, there was no statutory mandate requiring entities to obtain ISD registration for distributing credit among distinct units; therefore, the absence of such registration does not invalidate the transfer of credit. (Paras 10.5, 10.7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company with multiple business units, claimed Input Tax Credit on services imported from an overseas supplier. Although the supplier's invoice was addressed to one specific unit, the tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism was discharged by the petitioner. Tax authorities denied the ITC based on the invoice address and alleged that distributing credit to various branches without formal ISD registration violated statutory procedures.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the entity paying the tax under the reverse charge mechanism is the 'recipient' under the statutory definition. The court clarified that the ISD mechanism was optional, and the failure to obtain such registration during the relevant period did not render the distribution of credit illegal, particularly emphasizing that the transaction was revenue-neutral.

Issues: Whether an entity can claim Input Tax Credit on services under the reverse charge mechanism when the invoice is addressed to a different unit; and whether mandatory registration as an Input Service Distributor was required for distributing ITC among distinct units during the period of 2017-2019.

Ratio Decidendi: The entity discharging the tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism qualifies as the recipient entitled to credit. Moreover, the ISD mechanism was not mandatory before its legislative amendment in 2024; consequently, distributing credit to branch units without dedicated registration is legally sustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed; order of the tax authority quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual context of the dispute concerning input tax credit and isd registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. eligibility for itc under rcm based on self-invoices and recipient definition. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

1.This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, challenging Ext.P1 order passed under section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, by which, it was ordered to reverse the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,31,14,220/-, by holding that the same was wrongly availed by the petitioner. It was also found in the said order that, the petitioner had distributed the input tax credit among the other branches of the company (distinct persons) without obtaining a registration for Input Service Distributor (ISD), and thereby violated the provisions of the CGST Act.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a multinational company having global presence and multiple branches all over the world. Since the petitioner is having business places in various States in the country, separate registrations have been taken in respect of all the said units, in the respective States, as per the requirements of the CGST Act. The units of the petitioner are located at Delhi, Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, apart from the petitioner-unit.

3. During the period from July, 2017 to March 2019, M/s Intertech USA Inc., the parent company of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as foreign company) provided services such as, email, virus protection, IT management and infrastructure services along with other IT support services to the petitioner company and to the other units of the petitioner company across the country. For the aforesaid transactions, the foreign company issued Ext.P4 invoice dated 31.8.2017 in the name of M/s Intertech India Pvt. Ltd, Delhi, which is the corporate office of the company. However, by following the administrative practice of the company, the payment against Ext.P4 invoice was affected by the petitioner unit. Ext.P5 is the tax invoice evidencing the same. Since the invoice is raised in respect of a transaction with a company outside India, Ext.P6 self invoice was raised by the petitioner, as the liability of tax ought to have been discharged following the reverse charge mechanism (hereinafter referred to as RCM). Ext.P6 is the said invoice. The input tax credit against the said transaction was subsequently claimed by the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, as the services provided by the foreign company were availed by all the units of the company across the country, and the expenses incurred by the petitioner for such services pertain to other units as well, the value and credit in respect of the same had to be cross charged to the respective units. Accordingly, the petitioner raised five invoices on the other units (distinct persons as per section 25(4) of the CGST Act), as evidenced by Ext.P7.

5. On 29.10.2020, the petitioner was issued with form ADT-01 for conducting a GST audit and certain documents were called for from the petitioner. The petitioner furnished all the documents and the explanations, required by the authority concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P13 audit enquiry notice where, one of the main discrepancies highlighted was that, the petitioner had wrongly availed and utilized the ITC amounting to Rs. 1,31,14,220/-, and the same is to be reversed. The petitioner submitted Ext.P14 reply to the same opposing the said proposal and ultimately it resulted in Ext.P19 show cause notice. In the show cause notice, apart from the allegation of availing ineligible ITC, it was also alleged that, the distribution of the ITC made by the petitioner to the other units was without obtaining a registration as input service distributor (ISD) and thus the petitioner had violated the provisions of the CGST Act. Even though the petitioner h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top