https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444711 Refund claims for IGST on telecom services supplied to inbound subscribers of foreign telecom operators (FTOs) were rejected as time-barred and on the ground that the supplies were not "export of services". The HC held that, where consideration is received after invoice issuance, the "relevant date" for limitation under s.54(1) CGST Act is the date of receipt of payment; since the authority gave no invoice-specific finding to support its assertion of advance payments, rejection on limitation was unsustainable, resulting in acceptance of the claims as within time. The HC further held that the services satisfied s.2(6) IGST Act conditions (provider in India, recipient outside India, place of supply outside India), treating them as export of services, and directed refund of the claimed amounts. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 14:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444711 Refund claims for IGST on telecom services supplied to inbound subscribers of foreign telecom operators (FTOs) were rejected as time-barred and on the ground that the supplies were not "export of services". The HC held that, where consideration is received after invoice issuance, the "relevant date" for limitation under s.54(1) CGST Act is the date of receipt of payment; since the authority gave no invoice-specific finding to support its assertion of advance payments, rejection on limitation was unsustainable, resulting in acceptance of the claims as within time. The HC further held that the services satisfied s.2(6) IGST Act conditions (provider in India, recipient outside India, place of supply outside India), treating them as export of services, and directed refund of the claimed amounts. Case-Laws GST Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444711