9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred by the Revenue against the four separate orders dated 09.01.2020, 02.03.2020, 07.05.2021 and 31.05.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (respondent no. 2) granting refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (hereafter 'ITC') was allowed. The petitioner also impugns the orders dated 25.03.2022 and 24.05.2022, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the orders-in-original dated 31.05.2021 and 18.11.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund of ITC in respect of the Financial Year 2019-20, were rejected. In addition, the petitioner also impugns an order dated 23.03.2022, whereby the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 02.03.2020 to the extent it partially denied the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Appellate Authority held that the petitioner was acting as an agent, and the services provided by it fell under the category of intermediary services. Thus, in terms of Section 13(8) of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'IGST Act') read with Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, services rendered by the petitioner could not be treated as export of services. 6. The petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized ITC for the Financial Year 2019-20 was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on similar grounds. The petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority also met the same fate. 7. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the order dated 02.03.2020, to the extent that the petitioner's claim for refund for the quarter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch and developing strategies for India and neighbouring regions on a global basis." 12. According to the petitioner, such services do not qualify as intermediary services as there is no third party involved in rendering all these services. The petitioner contends that it neither facilitates nor arranges for supply of services from any third party. The petitioner claims that the said services are rendered on principal-to-principal basis. 13. According to the petitioner, the question involved in the present petition is covered by the recent decision of this Court in M/s Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi & Anr.: 2023:DHC:2116-DB. 14. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 15. There is meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
