TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes tax order, remands for refund decision under GST Act. Circular allows foreign service exports.</h1> <h3>M/s. Harri Software Development and Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> M/s. Harri Software Development and Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India - TMI Issues:1. Quashing of order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20172. Refund of excess tax collected3. Interpretation of the term 'export of services'Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 30.07.2021 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, claiming it to be illegal and arbitrary. The issue revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's claim for refund of Input Tax Credit by the 3rd respondent, which was upheld by the 2nd respondent in appeal. The contention was that services provided by the petitioner to its overseas branch were not considered as 'Export of Services.' The petitioner argued that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs clarified that holding companies were separate legal entities, making the petitioner eligible for a refund.2. The petitioner relied on a circular dated 20.09.2021, which highlighted that a company incorporated in India and a foreign company incorporated outside India were recognized as separate legal entities under the CGST Act. Therefore, subsidiaries, sister concerns, or group concerns of a foreign company incorporated in India were considered distinct persons under the law. The circular emphasized that services provided by such entities to establishments of the foreign company outside India would qualify as 'export of services.' In light of this circular, the respondent's counsel agreed that the matter needed reconsideration by the original authority.3. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 for a fresh decision on the petitioner's refund claim. The court directed the authority to consider the circular dated 20.09.2021 within six weeks and provide a decision after giving the petitioner due notice and hearing. The writ petition was disposed of, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
