#export of services

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund of unutilised ITC allowed as receipt of export proceeds in another branch’s bank account does not negate export of services

Cable and Wireless Global India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Ors., Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 14764/2022 Court: High Court of DelhiCoram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder DudejaPetition No.: W.P.(C) 14764/2022Category of Dispute: Refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit – Export of ServicesRelevant Provisions: Section 2(6), Section 2(15) of the…

Refund of unutilised ITC allowed as receipt of export proceeds in another branch’s bank account does not negate export of services

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund claim could not be re-adjudicated once Appellate Authority's order attained finality; High Court issued contempt notice for wilful non-compliance with earlier direction to disburse refund with interest.

Alex Tour & Travel Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, CGST Uttam Nagar Division, Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 12739/2023 | Refund of Unutilised ITC (Export of Services) | Order dated 22.11.2023 1. Classification of Case under GST Act (2017) Category: Refund of Unutilised ITC – Export of ServicesRelevant Provisions: Section 16 & 54 of CGST Act – Zero-rated supply refund framework Rule 89 of CGST…

Refund claim could not be re-adjudicated once Appellate Authority's order attained finality; High Court issued contempt notice for wilful non-compliance with earlier direction to disburse refund with interest.

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund of unutilised ITC cannot be withheld once the assessee has succeeded in appeal; refusal to process refund despite appellate order amounts to wilful non-compliance warranting contempt action.

ALEX TOUR AND TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CGST, UTTAM NAGAR DIVISION Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 12739/2023 | Refund of ITC | Order dated 22.11.2023Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Justice Amit MahajanStatutory Provisions Involved: Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 – Refund of tax / ITC Section 56, CGST Act, 2017 – Interest on delayed refund Rule 89, CGST Rules, 2017 – Refund…

Refund of unutilised ITC cannot be withheld once the assessee has succeeded in appeal; refusal to process refund despite appellate order amounts to wilful non-compliance warranting contempt action.

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund of ITC allowed as professional services rendered by Indian branch of EY were held to be export of services and not intermediary functions, since the branch supplied services on its own account and did not arrange or facilitate third-party supplies

Case Summary: M/s Ernst & Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 8600/2022 | Judgment dated 23.03.2023Category: Refund – Export of Services – Intermediary vs Own-Account Service ProviderRelevant Provisions: IGST Act: Sections 2(6) (Export of services), 2(13) (Intermediary), 13(2) (Place of supply – general rule), 13(8)(b) (Intermediary POS…

Refund of ITC allowed as professional services rendered by Indian branch of EY were held to be export of services and not intermediary functions, since the branch supplied services on its own account and did not arrange or facilitate third-party supplies

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund denial set aside as Rule 89(4) was incorrectly invoked despite the exporter having paid IGST on zero-rated supplies

OHMI Industries Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 6856/2022 | Refund (Zero-Rated Supply – IGST Paid) | Date of Judgment: 29.03.2023Relevant Provisions: Section 16 IGST Act; Rule 89(4) CGST Rules. Facts of the Case (Paras 1–8) The petitioner exported services in October 2018 and duly paid IGST of ₹12,02,165 on such zero-rated supplies. Foreign Inward…

Refund denial set aside as Rule 89(4) was incorrectly invoked despite the exporter having paid IGST on zero-rated supplies

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund of ITC allowed as advisory support services to foreign parent were held to be export of services, not intermediary services, and place of supply remained outside India under Section 13(2) IGST Act.

CASE SUMMARY M/s Cube Highways and Transportation Assets Advisor Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division & Ors.Delhi High CourtW.P.(C) 14427/2022, W.P.(C) 14461/2022 & W.P.(C) 6014/2023Category: Refund of ITC – Export of Services – Intermediary vs. Advisory Services – Place of SupplyDate of Judgment: 17 August 2023Relevant Provisions: Section 2(6), 2(13), 13(2), 13(3)(b), 13(4),…

Refund of ITC allowed as advisory support services to foreign parent were held to be export of services, not intermediary services, and place of supply remained outside India under Section 13(2) IGST Act.

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund allowed as the Delhi High Court held that bookkeeping and payroll support services constituted principal services and not “intermediary services”, thereby qualifying as export of services.

CASE SUMMARY Boks Business Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Delhi South & Anr. Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 1255/2023 | Category: Refund – Export of Services – Intermediary vs. Principal Supplier | Date of Judgment: 22.08.2023Relevant Statutory Provisions: Section 16, IGST Act – Zero-rated supply Section 2(6), IGST Act – Export of services Section 2(13), IGST…

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Refund rejection quashed as services by Indian subsidiary to its foreign parent held to be exports, not supplies between establishments of distinct persons due to clear CBIC circular and settled company-law principles

Case Summary Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Commissioner, Zone VIII & Anr.Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 11413/2023 | Refund—Export of Services | Decided on 01.09.2023** Facts (Paras 1–12) The petitioner, Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., an EOU registered with STPI, exported IT software services to its foreign holding company, Xilinx Inc., USA, under an Intercompany…

Refund rejection quashed as services by Indian subsidiary to its foreign parent held to be exports, not supplies between establishments of distinct persons due to clear CBIC circular and settled company-law principles