Whether the impugned supplies qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) IGST and whether the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 13(2)/place of supply under Section 13(8)(b) was the dominant issue. The court held the authorities failed to make requisite findings on (a) existence of a third party intermeddling in transactions, (b) whether supplies were between two principals or by the petitioner on its own account, and (c) whether the petitioner merely arranged/facilitated supplies; their orders were cryptic and showed non-application of mind. Consequence: impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to appellate and refund sanctioning authorities for fresh decision. - HC
Whether the impugned supplies qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) IGST and whether the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 13(2)/place of supply under Section 13(8)(b) was the dominant issue. The court held the authorities failed to make requisite findings on (a) existence of a third party intermeddling in transactions, (b) whether supplies were between two principals or by the petitioner on its own account, and (c) whether the petitioner merely arranged/facilitated supplies; their orders were cryptic and showed non-application of mind. Consequence: impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to appellate and refund sanctioning authorities for fresh decision. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
