https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430319 The Punjab and Haryana HC allowed a petition challenging denial of refund claim for unutilized Input Tax Credit on zero-rated export services. The petitioner, a BPO service provider, was wrongly classified as an intermediary under Section 2(13) of IGST Act by tax authorities. The court held that the Master Service Agreement clauses merely outlined work modalities and did not establish the petitioner as facilitating third-party services. The petitioner directly rendered services rather than arranging/facilitating services through others. Consequently, the services qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) IGST Act, making the petitioner eligible for ITC refund under Section 54 CGST Act. The impugned order dated 15.02.2021 was set aside. en-us Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Apr 2025 17:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430319 The Punjab and Haryana HC allowed a petition challenging denial of refund claim for unutilized Input Tax Credit on zero-rated export services. The petitioner, a BPO service provider, was wrongly classified as an intermediary under Section 2(13) of IGST Act by tax authorities. The court held that the Master Service Agreement clauses merely outlined work modalities and did not establish the petitioner as facilitating third-party services. The petitioner directly rendered services rather than arranging/facilitating services through others. Consequently, the services qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) IGST Act, making the petitioner eligible for ITC refund under Section 54 CGST Act. The impugned order dated 15.02.2021 was set aside. Case-Laws GST Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430319