2024 (4) TMI 853

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2023, the petitioner replied on 26.10.2023. The order impugned herein was issued thereafter on 15.12.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order and pointed out that such order deals with three issues. The first issue that he dealt with pertains to short payment of GST on import of services from a subsidiary company. On this issue, learned counsel relied on the second proviso to Rule 28 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules) to contend that it is open to the recipient of service, who is eligible for full Input Tax Credit (ITC), to issue an invoice in respect thereof and that such invoice value shall be deemed to the open market value of the goods or services. In spite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner should approach the appellate authority. With regard to the non payment of GST on turnover from export of services, learned senior standing counsel contends that the services should be paid for through an authorised dealer. In the absence of sufficient evidence in such regard, he contends that no interference is warranted with the impugned order. As regards the third issue, he submits that the petitioner should have issued a credit note for the value of services not provided. Since this was done, he contends that there is no infirmity in the order. 4. On examining the impugned order, as regards the first issue, the respondents noticed that the petitioner relied on the second proviso to Rule 28 of the CGST Rules. After not....