TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions set aside and quash the impugned order in Form GST RFD 06 dated 19.11.2025 (Exhibit "A") and show cause notice dated 15.10.2025 (Exhibit "F") passed by Respondent no. 2; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari/ Declaration or any other appropriate Writ/order/direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner case and after going through the facts of the Petitioner's case hold and declare that the services supplied by the Petitioner to the overseas group companies located outside India is an "export ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof, hold that the impugned order-in-original dated 17.11.2025 (Exhibit "A"), and show cause notice dated 13.10.2025 (Exhibit "F"), has been passed in violation of Section 54(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, as ninety percent of the claim of refund ought to have been granted to the Petitioner;" 2. It is the Petitioner's case that it forms a part of the global Lubrizol Group of companies, dealing with wide spectrum of vehicular requirements, including enhancement of energy efficiency, reduction of emissions, and improvement of reliability and durability of engines used in internal co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear for a personal hearing. A personal hearing was accorded to the Petitioner on 14th November 2025. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that however, the contentions as urged on behalf of the Petitioner were not considered when the impugned order dated 19th November 2025 came be passed rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 56,11,885/- for July 2024 on the ground that the Petitioner is an intermediary and the services do not qualify as export of services. The Petitioner has raised several contentions to assail the impugned order dated 19th November 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 including contention on the breach of the principles of natural justice as also non application of mind. 5. Mr. Raichandani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he circular dated 20 September 2021, which, in the context of 'export of services', was also referred in paragraph 30 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He also refers to a Circular of even date issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in the context of "clarification on doubts related to scope of intermediary and scope of intermediary services", and more particularly, as to what has been set out in paragraph 3 and its sub-paragraphs i.e. paragraphs 3.1 to 3.6 thereof. Mr. Raichandani has also drawn our attention to the specific case made out by the petitioner before the appellate authority, not only in the context of the purport of the said circular vis-a-vis the relevant provisions of the IG....