Refund claim review required where authority failed to address contractual, intermediary and IGST Act applicability; remand for fresh adjudication ordered.

The authority's rejection of a refund claim was set aside because it failed to adequately consider the petitioner's contractual arrangements, the applicability of Section 13(8) of the IGST Act and relevant circulars and precedents, and issues of intermediary characterisation and export-of-services treatment; accordingly the impugned order is quashed and the matter remitted to Respondent No.2 for de novo consideration after hearing the parties, with all contentions kept open and a fresh decision to be rendered within three months.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 rejecting the petitioner's refund claim ought to be quashed and the matter remanded to Respondent No.2 for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The Court examined the record and the manner in which Respondent No.2 decided the refund application, noting that the authority did not adequately consider the petitioner's contentions regarding the contractual arrangements, the applicability of Section 13(8) of the IGST Act, 2017 and relevant circulars and precedents. The Court referred to analogous decisions where similar issues required detailed appellate re-examination and observed that the impugned order reflects insufficient appreciation of the points raised, including issues touching upon intermediary characterization and the applicability of export of services principles; accordingly, a fresh adjudication by the authority after hearing the parties is necessary.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated 19.11.2025 is quashed and set aside and the proceedings are remanded to Respondent No.2 for de novo consideration and fresh decision in accordance with law within three months, with all contentions of the parties kept open.

---