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>Service Performance Dispute Resolved: Partial Refund Claim Upheld with Directive for Comprehensive Verification of Intercompany Agreement</h1> <h3>M/s WORKPLACE OPTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX - DED 2, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS)</h3> HC allowed partial refund claim, remanding case for fresh determination of service rendering in December 2017. The court directed respondent to re-examine ... Rejection of refunds - Export of services - Proof of date of providing / exporting services - during the month of December 2017, the Invoices/Debit Notes were missed to be reported in the GST returns and on identification of such error, the same was reported in the returns filed in the month of March 2018 and in light of such delay, interest was calculated and paid, while declaring the same in the returns for the month of March 2018 - HELD THAT:- It would narrow down to the determination as to whether services were rendered in December 2017, and the case of petitioner that it had omitted to raise Invoice during December 2017, which it has subsequently raised in March 2018 though for the services rendered in December 2017, requires to be re- looked into it and the finding recorded thereon. If the finding regarding rendering of services in December 2017 is recorded and Clause-2 of the Intercompany Master Services Agreement is taken note of and appropriate finding is given that would resolve the controversy. The impugned orders dated 23.03.2020 at Annexure-'A' and Annexure-'B' dated 17.07.2019 are set aide - the matter is remitted for fresh adjudication before respondent No.2 - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:The petitioner seeks a declaration that the impugned order affirming the rejection of refunds related to service activity is illegal and requests the quashing of said orders.Details of the judgment:The petitioner had entered into an Intercompany Master Services Agreement to provide services to a company outside India, with the agreement providing for remuneration of costs incurred for services rendered. The petitioner claimed zero-rated supply of services under the IGST Act and asserted entitlement to claim refund of Input Tax Credit. Invoices missed in GST returns were later reported, with interest paid for the delay. The petitioner applied for a refund of Rs.66,68,794, which was partially rejected on grounds of being adjustment bills, not related to service activity.The petitioner's appeal against the rejection of the refund was also dismissed, with the respondent contending that clarity was needed on whether services were actually rendered during the relevant period. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication to determine if services were rendered in December 2017, considering the Intercompany Master Services Agreement. The impugned orders were set aside, with a specific direction to record findings on the rendering of services in December 2017.The remand was made with a directive to not retract any benefit previously granted to the assessee during earlier proceedings. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
