https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436399 HC ruled in favor of petitioner regarding IGST refund denial on export of market research services. Revenue authorities incorrectly classified petitioner as intermediary under Section 2(13) IGST Act. Court held petitioner directly provided market research services to Japanese client, not arranging/facilitating third-party services. Since petitioner rendered services independently rather than as intermediary, denial of integrated tax refund was unjustified. Appellate authority's order lacked proper consideration of facts specific to market research services versus business support services. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2025 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436399 HC ruled in favor of petitioner regarding IGST refund denial on export of market research services. Revenue authorities incorrectly classified petitioner as intermediary under Section 2(13) IGST Act. Court held petitioner directly provided market research services to Japanese client, not arranging/facilitating third-party services. Since petitioner rendered services independently rather than as intermediary, denial of integrated tax refund was unjustified. Appellate authority's order lacked proper consideration of facts specific to market research services versus business support services. Case-Laws GST Wed, 29 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436399