Service Tax – Cestat New Delhi: Issue whether telecommunication service is Intermediary of exports – Held that when the Input tax refund was confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) then the re-examination of the same by the learned Assistant Commissioner is an attempted to overreach the orders passed by the superior authority – Writ petition allowed [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
19-Dec-2022 12:01:18
Order date – 14 December 2022
Facts –
- The Petitioner, M/s Singtel Global India Pvt. Ltd, engaged in providing telecommunication services and claims that a part of its services are exported. The petitioner claims that export of services are zero rated, and the input tax credit available to it remained unutilised.
- The petitioner applied for a refund of input tax credit for the period July, 2015 to September, 2015. The refund was allowed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
- The learned Assistant Commissioner did not process the refund as directed by the orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), but took upon itself to once again re-examine the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of input tax credit.
- Being aggrieved the appellant had filed an appeal
Issue –
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of input tax credit?
Order –
- The Hon’ble High Court observed that it is clear from the impugned order that the Assistant Commissioner has sought to re-adjudicate the question as to whether the services provided by the petitioner are export of services or not. The impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the judicial discipline. It is, ex facie, apparent that the learned Assistant Commissioner has attempted to overreach the orders passed by the superior authority.
- The Court relied on the written submission from Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC, which has fairly submitted that the impugned order, which proceeds on the basis that the petitioner is a provider of intermediary services, is incorrect and it is not open for the Revenue to take this stand. The Revenue would necessarily have to wait for the outcome of the appeals preferred by the learned CESTAT (which have since been dismissed as well).
- Hence the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent to process the petitioner’s application within a period of four weeks from today and also the respondent shall consider the petitioner’s entitlement to interest considering the delay in processing its application.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation