Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33308
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
M/S COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR INDIA SOURCING PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE – Respondent
WP No. 3376 of 2023 | Writ Petition No. 12116 of 2024 | Writ Petition No. 3486 of 2020 | Writ Petition No. 3420 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. V. RAGHURAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL, SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C. R., SRI. BHANUMURTHY J.S.
For the Respondents: SRI. MADANAN PILLAI R., SRI. ARAVIND V.CHAVAN, SRI. KUMAR M. N., SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI
The classification of a service provider as an intermediary under the IGST Act requires a minimum of three parties and distinct supplies, which was not satisfied in the present case as services were rendered on a principal-to-principal basis.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 2(6) - Writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions and orders regarding service tax and Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner - The court clarified that the petitioner did not act as an intermediary as defined under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act because it supplied services on its own account, and thus its activities qualified as export of services - The impugned orders rejecting the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred were quashed, and the respondents were ordered to process the refund expeditiously with interest. (Paras 12, 15, 18, 24, 34)
(B) Intermediary Services - Definition and prerequisites - The court reiterated that to be classified as an intermediary, a service provider must facilitate or arrange a supply between two separate parties without directly engaging in the service provision on their own account - It was established that only two parties were engaged in the contracts, thus disqualifying the petitioner from being categorized as an intermediary service provider. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 6, 9)
Key Points: - The petitioner argues they are not an intermediary under Section 2(13) of IGST Act and qualify as export of services; court analyzes criteria for intermediary and finds petitioner not an intermediary in several rulings. (!) (!) (!) - Court discusses prerequisites for intermediary services: minimum three parties, two distinct supplies, and the intermediary's role as facilitator rather than main service provider; relies on CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST and various judgments. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Karnataka High Court holds that the services provided by the petitioner are export of services and directs processing of ITC/refund with interest, quashing orders that treated them as intermediary and time-barred refunds; specific orders quashed in W.P.No.12116/2024 and related petitions. (!) (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner provides services as a separate legal entity. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. characterization of petitioner’s services not as intermediary. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. definition of intermediary services requires more than two parties. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORAL ORDER
In W.P.No.12116/2024, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
“(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to quash impugned Order-in-Original No.34/2022-23 dated 01.07.2022 bearing DIN: 202207570000006655 enclosed as Annexure A for the reasons stated in the grounds.
(B) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to quash impugned Order-in-Original No.104/2022-23ND3 dated 28.03.2023 bearing DIN:2023035700000000AB77 enclosed as Annexure B for the reasons stated in the grounds.
(C) Writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction to declare that the provisions of Section 8 of INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 , enclosed as Annexure C, as unconstitutional for the reasons stated in the grounds.
(D) Writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction to declare that the provisions of Section 13 (8) (b) of INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 , enclosed as Annexure D, as unconstitutional for the reasons stated in the grounds.
(E) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to quash Circular. No. 159/15/2021 dated 20.09.2021 to extent of Para 3.6 as unconstitutional, enclosed as Annexure E for the reasons stated in the grounds.
(F) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to quash Circular No.135/05/2020-GST dated 31 March 2020 to extent of Para 5 as unconstitutional, enclosed as Annexure F for the reasons stated in the grounds.
(G) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction to declare that the provisions of 36(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, enclosed as Annexure G, as unconstitutional for the reasons stated in the grounds.
(H) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction to declare that the provisions of the provisions of sub rule (4) of rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 enclosed as Annexure H as being unreasonable and discriminatory and therefore to be struck down as violative of Article 14 and/or 19;
(I) This Hon'ble Court may issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring.
(J) Grant such other consequential reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including refund of amounts paid, if any and the cost of this writ petition.”
In W.P.No.3486/2020, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
“(A) Writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction to declare that the provisions of Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (Annexure-A) as ultra vires the Constitutional 101st Amendment Act, 2016, being legislatively incompetent and violative of Article 14/19/265 of the Constitution.
(B) Writ or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned Order-in-Original No. BLR-EXCUS-004-RLR-034-19-20 dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-B0 passed by Respondent No.1 as being violative of Article 14/19 of the Constitution.
(C) Direct the Respondent by an appropriate writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, not to proceed with the recovery of the amounts proposed in the impugned Order-in-Original No. BLR-EXCUS-004-RLR-034- 19-20 dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-B) passed by the Respondent No.1.
(D) Grant such other consequential reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including refund of amounts paid, if any and the cost of this writ petition.”
In W.P.No.3376/2023, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
“(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to quash impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 04.11.2022 bearing OIA No. 226-230/2022-23/JC-All/GST and having DIN 20221157000000333A25 enclosed as Annexure A for the reasons s
