2022 (5) TMI 456 - HC - GST

Refund Claim for Market Research Services as Export Under IGST Act Section 2(6)(iii) Faces Legal Challenge

M/s. Ohmi Industries Asia Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner, CGST

The HC is examining a writ petition challenging an Appellate Authority's order denying a refund claim of Rs. 14,14,604, later limited to Rs. 3,71,767 for ... Refund of service tax - business support - market research - petitioner says that the appeal was preferred only for services rendered by the petitioner in the form of market research - HELD THAT:- It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfilled the criteria for export services vis-à-vis services rendered qua market research, contrary to what has been held by the authority below - It is, therefore, counsel for the petitioner’s contention that the provisions of Section 2(6)(iii) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017 are fulfilled. Issue notice - List the matter on 08.09.2022. Issues:Challenge to order of Appellate Authority regarding refund claim for services under business support and market research; Interpretation of provisions of Section 2(6)(iii) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017.Analysis:The High Court was presented with a writ petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.09.2021, concerning a refund claim amounting to Rs. 14,14,604. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority merely replicated the adjudicating authority's order without due consideration. It was highlighted that the refund claim pertained to services provided in the categories of business support and market research. The petitioner specifically appealed for the services related to market research, limiting the refund claim to Rs. 3,71,767. The crux of the petitioner's argument revolved around fulfilling the criteria for export services, particularly in the context of market research, disputing the findings of the lower authority. The petitioner emphasized compliance with Section 2(6)(iii) of the IGST Act, 2017, asserting that they did not function as an intermediary concerning the recipient of the service, Ohmi Japan.The Court acknowledged the submissions and issued notice to the respondent, who accepted the same through Mr. Anish Roy. The Court directed the filing of a counter-affidavit within six weeks, with provision for a rejoinder before the subsequent hearing scheduled for 08.09.2022. This procedural step indicated the Court's intention to thoroughly examine the matter and allow both parties to present their arguments comprehensively before reaching a decision. The case was poised to delve into the intricacies of the IGST Act and its application to the specific circumstances of the petitioner's service transactions, particularly focusing on the interpretation of Section 2(6)(iii) in the context of export services related to market research.