https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408667 The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, which treats intermediary services to overseas customers as intra-state supply. The petitioner, an intermediary providing services to overseas customers who export goods to India, argued the provision violated constitutional principles by deeming inter-state supply as intra-state. The HC held that Parliament has constitutional authority under Articles 269A(5) and 246A to determine place of supply for intermediary services. The provision was found neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Article 14, as it creates reasonable classification with intelligible differentia. The court rejected claims of double taxation and extra-territorial operation, ruling the provision constitutionally valid and within legislative competence. en-us Wed, 16 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408667 The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, which treats intermediary services to overseas customers as intra-state supply. The petitioner, an intermediary providing services to overseas customers who export goods to India, argued the provision violated constitutional principles by deeming inter-state supply as intra-state. The HC held that Parliament has constitutional authority under Articles 269A(5) and 246A to determine place of supply for intermediary services. The provision was found neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Article 14, as it creates reasonable classification with intelligible differentia. The court rejected claims of double taxation and extra-territorial operation, ruling the provision constitutionally valid and within legislative competence. Case-Laws GST Wed, 16 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408667