CABLE AND WIRELESS GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

VERSUS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST & ORS. Vide Order No.  W. P. (C) 14764/2022 dated 26.09.2024

Citation: 2024 Taxo.online 2326

The Delhi High Court in the case, noted that under Section 2(6)(iv) of the IGST Act, 2017, which defines “export of services,” there is no requirement for payment to be received in any particular bank account of the supplier. The provision only requires that the payment for services be received by the supplier.

The court further clarified that the location of the bank account where payment is received does not change the identity of the supplier under Section 2(15) of the IGST Act. In this case, the petitioner remained the actual supplier, and the payment being routed to the Bangalore branch account did not alter this fact.

It was held that department’s objection was overly technical and without merit. The refund could not be denied merely because the payment was received in a bank account of a different branch. The court emphasized that the underlying objective of the law was met since the supplier received the payment.

In this case, the petitioner is engaged in providing Business Support Services to Vodafone Group Services Limited (VGSL), faced rejection of a refund claim for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the tax department. The department's rejection was based on a technicality that the payment for the services was routed to the petitioner’s Bangalore branch’s bank account instead of the Delhi branch’s account. The department argued that this violated the conditions for “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, leading to the denial of the refund. It was contended that

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426