<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (5) TMI 927 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438120</link>
    <description>HC allowed the appeal and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The court directed the Adjudicating Authority to thoroughly re-examine the petitioner&#039;s actual work, service agreements, and fee structure to determine whether the petitioner qualifies as an intermediary under GST law. The original order rejecting the ITC refund was set aside, with instructions for a comprehensive empirical assessment of the service arrangement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 927 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438120</link>
      <description>HC allowed the appeal and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The court directed the Adjudicating Authority to thoroughly re-examine the petitioner&#039;s actual work, service agreements, and fee structure to determine whether the petitioner qualifies as an intermediary under GST law. The original order rejecting the ITC refund was set aside, with instructions for a comprehensive empirical assessment of the service arrangement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438120</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>