2020 (8) TMI 890 - AAAR - GST

Export of services or not - consultancy services provided to Overseas client - AAR ruled that the services in question are not 'Export of Service' but 'Intermediary Services', and attract IGST - Request for remand of the case - HELD THAT - A request was made by the appellant to remand back the case to its original authority in light of the recent developments in the subject case, referring to a judgment in case of IBM India Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise State Taxes., Banglore-LTU, 2019 (1) TMI 975 - CESTAT BANGALORE . Consequent upon the request of the appellant, this authority remanded the case back to its original Authority to examine afresh and dispose accordingly. The case is remanded to it's original authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to lockdown circumstances.
2. Clarification on whether consultancy services provided to Overseas client constitute export or intermediary services.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The case involved M/s. DKV Enterprises Private Limited seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in Andhra Pradesh. The appellant cited special circumstances arising from the Covid-19 lockdown as the reason for the delay. The authority considered the appeal under subsection 2 of section 100 of the APGST Act 2017/CGST Act 2017, which mandates filing within 30 days from the communication of the ruling. The authority, in the exercise of powers under the proviso to subsection 2 of Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.

2. Nature of Consultancy Services:
The appellant, an authorized non-exclusive consultant for Grace products (Singapore) Pte Limited, sought clarification on whether the consultancy services provided to an Overseas client constituted export or intermediary services. The original Authority for Advance Ruling had ruled that the services were not 'Export of Service' but 'Intermediary Services,' attracting IGST. The appellant, aggrieved by this ruling, filed an application before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, contending the decision and requesting clarification. During the personal hearing, the authorized representative argued that the nature of service had been misinterpreted and referred to a relevant judgment involving IBM India Pvt Ltd. The Appellate Authority, considering the submissions, remanded the case back to the original authority for a fresh examination and disposal accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment remanded the case to its original authority for further review in light of the arguments presented during the appeal process.