https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442001 Delhi HC allowed the petition for ITC refund on export of advisory services. The petitioner provided investment advisory services to a Singapore-based company regarding opportunities in India. The Adjudicating Authority wrongly classified these as intermediary services under IGST Act Section 13, reasoning that since the recipient invested based on petitioner's advice, the services were rendered to the recipient's customers. HC held this reasoning fundamentally flawed, clarifying that intermediary services require three parties - supplier, recipient, and intermediary facilitating supply. Here, petitioner rendered advisory services directly to the Singapore company on its own account, not as an intermediary. The Authority also incorrectly applied other provisions of Section 13. HC set aside the refund rejection orders and directed processing the refund claim within eight weeks. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442001 Delhi HC allowed the petition for ITC refund on export of advisory services. The petitioner provided investment advisory services to a Singapore-based company regarding opportunities in India. The Adjudicating Authority wrongly classified these as intermediary services under IGST Act Section 13, reasoning that since the recipient invested based on petitioner's advice, the services were rendered to the recipient's customers. HC held this reasoning fundamentally flawed, clarifying that intermediary services require three parties - supplier, recipient, and intermediary facilitating supply. Here, petitioner rendered advisory services directly to the Singapore company on its own account, not as an intermediary. The Authority also incorrectly applied other provisions of Section 13. HC set aside the refund rejection orders and directed processing the refund claim within eight weeks. Case-Laws GST Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442001