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>Petitioner not an 'intermediary' under IGST Act; entitled to GST refund if payment received in foreign currency</h1> <h3>KC Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. Vsersus The Union of India and Ors.</h3> HC held that petitioner does not fall within the definition of intermediary under the IGST Act and therefore is entitled to a refund of GST paid, subject ... Non-compliance with sub-clause 3 of sec 2(6) of the IGST Act - scope of export of services - intermediary services - HELD THAT:- Considering the definition of ‘recipient’ as contained in sec 2(93) of the GST Act, which holds an entity to be a recipient in case their consideration is payable supply of services, is the person who is liable to pay that consideration and the language of Sec 13(2) r/w sec 2(6) of IGST in light of the definition of intermediary as contained in sec 2(13) as indicated above, that the petitioner would not fall within that definition and therefore, would be entitled to a refund of the GST paid by the petitioner to the department subject to receipt of the consideration in foreign currency. Petition allowed. Only a single contention was pressed: non-compliance with sub-clause (3) of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act (definition of 'export of services'). The Bench holds the entire definition must be read as a whole and in the background of the statutory definition of 'recipient' (Sec. 2(93) GST Act) and Sec. 13(2), in conjunction with the definition of 'intermediary' (Sec. 2(13) IGST Act). Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision in Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Addl. Com. CGST and CBIC Circular No. 159/15/21-GST dated 20.9.2021. A Service Tax Appellate Tribunal decision concerning the petitioner was also noted, which treated the petitioner as providing services to foreign universities (consideration paid by those universities) and not to students in India. Applying the combined statutory reading, the petitioner falls within the definition entitling it to refund of GST paid, 'subject to receipt of the consideration in foreign currency.' The impugned order dated 7.3.2024 is quashed and set aside; petitions are allowed; no costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
