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 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Virtusa Systems (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Ministry of Finance – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel represents Ms. K. Maanasa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D. Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in W.P.No.28201 of 2024. Mr. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.Nos.28201 and 5621 of 2024. Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel represents Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1.
2. All these writ petitions relate to the same petitioner. The rejection of refund by the Refund Sanctioning Authority dated 09.07.2024 is under challenge in W.P.No.28201 of 2024. The orders in appeal dated 12.12.2023 by which the refund sanction orders dated 09.11.2022 and 26.10.2022 have been set aside are under challenge in W.P.Nos.5621 and 5622 of 2024.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
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