2024-VIL-1113-DEL
  1. Home
  2. 2024-VIL-1113-DEL

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 - Location of the supplier of services, Export of services, Refund of Input Tax Credit, Distinct places of business – Petitioner has registered office in Karnataka and branch offices in Delhi and Maharashtra – Petitioner rendered support services to overseas client from its Delhi branch and claimed refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit – Denial of refund on the ground that the payments for the exported services were received in the bank account of the petitioner's Bangalore office, and not the Delhi office that provided the services - Whether the location of the supplier of services, for the purposes of the definition of "export of services" under the IGST Act, is determined by the place of business from which the supply was made, or the bank account in which the payment was received – HELD - the location of the supplier of services is determined by the place of business from which the supply was made, and not the bank account in which the payment was received. The IGST Act defines the "location of the supplier of services" with reference to the place of business for which the registration has been obtained, and not the bank account - Merely because the remittances were received in the Bangalore office's bank account would not alter the location of the supplier, which was the Delhi branch that provided the services. The respondents' objection to be overly technical and unsustainable – Further, Section 2(71) of the CGST Act, 2017 in unambiguous terms prescribes that the location of the supplier would be determined with reference to the situs of the place of business for which registration has been obtained and the same being the place which had effected the supply. This thus reinforces the pre-eminence which the statute accords upon the registered place of business which has made the supply and thus the remittance being directed towards a particular bank account paling into insignificance - the provisions in the CGST Act that treat establishments in different States as distinct persons were meant to address the objective of the Act to levy tax on intra-State supplies, and did not override the fundamental principle that a branch office is not a separate juridical entity. These provisions did not impact the determination of the location of the supplier of services, which remained the Delhi branch that provided the services - the impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to process the petitioner's refund claim expeditiously – the writ petition is allowed
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

GST Video

GST Amnesty Scheme from 1st Nov
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?