2024-VIL-426-MAD

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Supply of services to foreign subsidiary company - Rejection of Refund on 'export of software development' service – Adjudicating authority opined that appellant's services exported to subsidiary in Australia, cannot be considered as export of services as they have not satisfied clause (v) of Section 2(5) of the IGST Act, 2017 – Denial of benefit of Circular No.161/17/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 on the ground that the said circular not available on the date of the order passed by the respondent – Revenue reliance on order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling - HELD - petitioner and its subsidiary are two distinct entities and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of Section 2(6)(v) of IGST Act, 2017 - The doctrine of the authority for advance Ruling in Segoma Imaging Technologies case, cannot be applied to the facts of this case - It cannot be said that the petitioner and its subsidiary are not merely establishment of a distinct person in accordance with the explanation I in Section 8 of the IGST Act, 2017 - The issue now stands clarified by Circular No. 161/17/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021. Revenue cannot argue against its own circular - The view expressed in the said circular is correct and clarifies the legal position and therefore, Court is not inclined to take a different view, though such a circular is not binding on this Court - the respondent is directed to process the re-fund claim of the petitioner together with interest - the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page