2023 (8) TMI 1210 - HC - GST

Seeking recovery of refund - invocation of extended period of limitation in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that since the respondents have taken conscious decision not to file SLP against the judgment 2022 (11) TMI 743 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , the ratio of Genpact India (P.) Ltd s case is directly applicable in this case, where it was held that A bare perusal of the recitals and relevant clauses of the MSA do not in any manner indicate that petitioner is acting as an intermediary so as to fall within the scope and ambit of the definition of intermediary under Section 2 (13) of the IGST Act. Such clauses cannot also be interpreted to conclude that the petitioner has facilitated the services. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the quashing of a Demand cum Show cause Notice issued under Sections 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue 1: Quashing of Demand cum Show cause Notice
In the case, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a Demand cum Show cause Notice issued by the Principal Commissioner of GST & CX. The notice required the petitioner to explain why the extended period of limitation should not be invoked for the recovery of a refund and demanded service tax. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued in response to a previous writ petition and that the judgment in that case was applicable to their situation. The court noted that the respondents had decided not to file a Special Leave Petition against the judgment in the previous case, leading to the quashing of the impugned notice.

Significant Phrases and Legal Terminology Used:
- Writ of certiorari
- Demand cum Show cause Notice
- Principal Commissioner of GST & CX
- Extended period of limitation
- Service tax
- Special Leave Petition (SLP)