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>Taxpayer falls within 'recipient' under IGST Act and entitled to GST refund despite non-compliance with section 2(6)(3)</h1> <h3>The Union of India & Ors. Versus Kc Overseas Education Pvt Ltd Nagpur.</h3> Petitioner's SLP dismissed by SC. The Court upheld CESTAT's view that, given the GST Act's definition of 'recipient' and 'intermediary,' the petitioner ... Non-compliance of sub-clause 3 of sec 2(6) of the IGST Act - It was held by CESTAT that 'We are unable to hold, 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. HELD THAT:- The SLP stands dismissed. Having regard to the judgment dated 06.05.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10815-10819/2014 (Commissioner of Service Tax III, Mumbai v. M/s. Vodafone India Ltd.) and connected matters, 'these special leave petitions also stand dismissed.' The Court further notes the dictum dated 04.11.2024 in SLP (C) No. 25992/2024 (Commissioner, Central Excise, CGST-Delhi South Commissionerate v. Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd.) as guiding authority. No separate reasons are recorded in this order; the dismissal is explicitly anchored to the earlier Supreme Court determination. All pending application(s) connected with these petitions 'shall also stand disposed of.' The operative outcome is therefore summary dismissal of the special leave petitions and disposal of attendant applications by reliance on prior precedent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
