Case Details: Vuram Technology Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals) - [2024] 162 taxmann.com 380 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- M. Dinesh for the Petitioner.
- N. Dilip Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in providing software services to its subsidiary in Australia. It filed a refund claim on the account of export if services, but the claim was rejected on the basis that it was not considered as export since the petitioner and the recipient of the services were merely distinct persons. The petitioner filed an appeal, but it was also rejected. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the rejection of the refund claim.
High Court Held
The High Court noted that Circular No. 161/17/2021-GST, dated 20.09.2021 provides that the supply of services by a company to its holding company situated outside India would not be barred by condition of section 2(6)(v) of the IGST Act 2017 from being considered as export under GST. The petitioner was engaged in providing software services to its subsidiary in Australia, and the petitioner and its subsidiary were two distinct entities. Hence this would qualify as export. The High Court held that the impugned order was to be set aside and the refund claim was to be processed together with interest.
List of Cases Referred to
- Xilinx India Technology Services (P.) Ltd. v. Special Commissioner Zone VIII [2023] 154 taxmann.com 312/99 GST 948/78 GSTL 24 (Delhi) (para 8).
The post Refund on Export is Allowed Where Services Supplied by Petitioner to Its Subsidiary Outside India | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
