https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752260 The Madras HC allowed a writ petition challenging rejection of refund claim for export of software development services. The court held that petitioner satisfied requirements under Section 2(6)(i) to (iv) of IGST Act, 2017, and since petitioner and its subsidiary are distinct entities, Section 2(6)(v) requirements were also met. The court distinguished the Segoma Imaging Technologies ruling and found petitioner and subsidiary constitute distinct establishments under Section 8 explanation 1 of IGST Act, 2017. The second respondent was directed to process the refund claim with interest within 12 weeks. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2024 18:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752260 The Madras HC allowed a writ petition challenging rejection of refund claim for export of software development services. The court held that petitioner satisfied requirements under Section 2(6)(i) to (iv) of IGST Act, 2017, and since petitioner and its subsidiary are distinct entities, Section 2(6)(v) requirements were also met. The court distinguished the Segoma Imaging Technologies ruling and found petitioner and subsidiary constitute distinct establishments under Section 8 explanation 1 of IGST Act, 2017. The second respondent was directed to process the refund claim with interest within 12 weeks. Case-Laws GST Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752260