TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, services rendered by the petitioner could not be treated as export of services. Whether the Appellate Authority was correct in holding that the services rendered by the petitioner in terms of the Advisory Services Agreement were in the nature of intermediary services? HELD THAT:- There is merit in the contention that the services relating to market research and developing strategies cannot be classified as intermediary services. However, there is a serious controversy as to the exact nature of services rendered by the petitioner. In the given circumstances, it was contended by the counsels that the matter be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh keeping in view the decision of this Court in M/s Ernst Young ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 petitioner s claim for refund of unutilized ITC, was rejected. 2. The controversy in the present petition relates to denial of the petitioner s claim for refund of accumulated ITC in relation to export of services for the periods April, 2018 to June, 2018; July, 2018 to September, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 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 July, 2018 to September, 2018 had been partially rejected. The petitioner filed a claim for refund of an amount of ₹88,81,834/- which was revised to ₹88,16,495/-. However, the Adjudicating Authority had computed the refund amount at ₹80,03,575/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 merit in the contention that the services relating to market research and developing strategies cannot be classified as intermediary services. However, there is a serious controversy as to the exact nature of services rendered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
