2023-TIOL-1090-HC-DEL-GST
Boks Business Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
GST - Refund of ITC - Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing book keeping, payroll, and accounting services through the use of cloud technology to its affiliated entity (TC Outsourcing Limited, previously known as Boks Business Services Limited) incorporated in the United Kingdom - Petitioner received a show cause notice dated 24.06.2020 proposing to reject the petitioner's claim for the refund on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner to its foreign client appeared to fall in the category of "intermediary services" and, therefore, the place of supply of services was within the territory of India - Officer noted that the petitioner had charged 500 GBP per workstation and, therefore, concluded that the petitioner was not the principal service provider, providing services through those workstations - On the basis of aforesaid reasoning, the officer held that the petitioner was an "intermediary", in terms of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, in respect of the services rendered by it and, therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner did not qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act - Appellate Authority concluded that the petitioner was not a principal service provider to the foreign clients, therefore, the present petition.
Held: In case of intermediary services, there are three entities - one providing the principal service, one receiving the principal service, and an intermediary who acts as an agent or a broker for facilitating or arranging such services for the service recipient - Petitioner is neither facilitating the provision of services by a third entity nor acting as a middleman for procuring such services for its affiliate - In the present case, although the agreement does use the word 'agent' but is clear that the petitioner is not acting as an agent for procurement of services for the service recipient - It is, in fact, providing the principal service of "Bookkeeping, Payroll, and accounts, through the use of cloud technology" - The fact that such services may be for the clients of the petitioner's affiliate, Boks Business Services Limited, does not make the petitioner an "intermediary" - Impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside - Respondents are directed to process the petitioner's claim for refund as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks: High Court [para 11, 12, 15]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1089-HC-DEL-GST
Jatin Gupta @ Parul Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence
GST - Petition filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to not arrest the petitioner in relation to summons dated 16 August 2023 u/s 70 served for his personal appearance on 23 August 2023 - Counsel for Respondent submitted that the petition is not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer [ 2023-TIOL-112-SC-GST ] - It is further submitted by the Counsel for Revenue that at present only the petitioner has been called for the purpose of inquiry and production of documents and the department has not even moved a file in accordance with Section 69 for the purpose of affecting the arrest of the accused and as the there is no apprehension of arrest at the moment, the application is pre-mature and liable to be dismissed.
Held: A bare perusal of Section 69 of the CGST makes it clear that there are sufficient inherent safeguards contained in Section 69 prior to the affecting arrest of the accused persons - The legislature in its wisdom has made it mandatory that before affecting the arrest of the accused, the Commissioner should have reasons to be believe that a person has committed an offence under Section 132 of the CGST - It further provides that the officer authorised to arrest the person shall inform such person the ground of arrest - Bench considers that Section 69 which is akin to Section 19 of PMLA has inherent safeguards before affecting the arrest of accused persons - Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the judgment of State of Gujarat etc. (supra), Bench considers that no relief can be granted in the present petition to the petitioner - Since the department has not even moved the file for effecting the arrest of the accused and there is no apprehension, the petition is dismissed: High Court [para 11, 12, 13]
- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1088-HC-DEL-GST
Gulati Enterprises Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has impugned orders of August 2019, July 2020 and August 2021 whereby their bank accounts were attached - In addition to the aforementioned orders, Commissioner CGST, Belapur passed another order dated August 2022 which further extended the period of provisional attachment; that since one year has passed since the said order was passed, in terms of s.83(2) the said order is no longer operative.
Held: Since the order dated 05.08.2022 - which was the last provisional order passed by the Commissionerate at Belapur - is no longer operative, the present petition has been rendered academic - Bench considers it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the concerned bank (respondent no.3) to not interdict the operation of the petitioner's bank account on account of any of the orders of the provisional attachment that are mentioned above - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT |
