Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1117 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund for input tax credit (ITC) in respect of export of services for the period from December 2017 to March 2020 - denial on the premise that the petitioner is an ‘intermediary’ and thus, the place of services is located in India, where the petitioner’s place of business is located and not where recipient of services is located.
Whether the Service rendered by the petitioner to EY Entities in terms of the service agreement constitutes services as an ‘intermediary’? - HELD THAT:- The services rendered by the petitioner to EY Entities, prior to roll out of the GST regime, was considered as ‘export of services’. The petitioner prevailed before the concerned service tax authorities in establishing that the professional services rendered by it cannot be considered as services as an ‘intermediary’. It is also material to note that the petitioner’s application for refund of ITC for the period after March 2020 has also been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, the petitioner has been denied ITC only for the period from December 2017 to March 2020; it has been allowed CENVAT credit for the period covered under the service tax regime as well as ITC for the period after March 2020.
In terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the IGST Act, the place of supply of certain services would be the location of the supplier of the services. In terms of Clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the IGST Act, the place of supply of intermediary services is the location of the supplier of services. In the present case, the place of supply of services has been held to be in India on the basis that the petitioner is providing intermediary services - the Services rendered by the petitioner are not as an intermediary and therefore, the place of supply of the Services rendered by the petitioner to overseas entities is required to be determined on basis of the location of the recipient of the Services. Since the recipient of the Services is outside India, the professional services rendered by the petitioner would fall within the scope of definition of ‘export of services’ as defined under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.
There is no dispute that the recipient of Services – that is EY Entities – are located outside India. Thus, indisputably, the Services provided by the petitioner would fall within the scope of the definition of the term ‘export of service’ under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.
The impugned order as well as the impugned orders-in-original are set aside - Petition allowed.