By Puloma Dalal | Jayesh Gogri | Mandar Telang, Chartered Accountants
I. HIGH COURT
71 Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. Ltd vs. Special Commissioner, Zone-VIII
2023 (78) GSTL 24 (Del.)
Date of Order: 1st September, 2023
Refund of IGST of a Subsidiary EOU incorporated in India providing services to its holding company outside India, cannot be denied by contending that the condition stated under section 2(6)(v) of the IGST Act 2017 are not satisfied.
FACTS
Petitioner, an Export Oriented Unit, had entered into an intercompany service agreement with its holding company located in the USA for export of information technology software services. Petitioner filed an application for refund of IGST amounting to ₹1,83,34,289 which was rejected by the respondent. A SCN was issued contending that condition under section 2(6)(v) of IGST Act which -provides that the petitioner and its holding company are merely establishments of a distinct person. Hence the condition was not satisfied and thus service provided did not c
