2023 (9) TMI 1129 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) - exports without the payment of taxes - POPOS Rules - intermediary services - rejection on the ground that the services provided by the petitioner were that of an intermediary and thus, the place of services was not located in India - HELD THAT - Prima facie, the said controversy is covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in M/S. ERNST AND YOUNG LIMITED VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEALS -II, DELHI AND ANR. 2023 (3) TMI 1117 - DELHI HIGH COURT and in M/S. MCDONALDS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEALS - II, DELHI ANR. 2023 (5) TMI 1123 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The exact nature of the services provided are required to be examined in the light of the aforementioned decisions, to ascertain whether the services rendered by the petitioner are for facilitating or for arranging the principal services. The petitioner s application for refund is restored to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration afresh. The Adjudicating Authority shall pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The petitioner assailed an Order-in-Appeal rejecting their appeal against an Order-in-Original related to the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) for exports, based on the classification of services as intermediary services with the place of services not in India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) for exports
The petitioner applied for a refund of unutilised ITC for exports without tax payment, but the application was rejected due to the classification of services as that of an intermediary, not located in India. The petitioner contended that their services are on a principal-to-principal basis, not involved in arranging or facilitating principal services.

Issue 2: Nature of services provided
The Court noted that the controversy is similar to previous decisions and required examination of the exact nature of services provided by the petitioner to determine if they are for facilitating or arranging principal services. The impugned Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original were set aside for further consideration.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the petitioner's refund application to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide on the application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks. The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.