M/S Amazon Development Centre INDIA Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
“ a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate wit of order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice No. FILE GEXCOM/SCN/ST/2085/2022-COST- RANGE-A-DIV-4-NORTH- COMMRTE-BENGALURU(N) & SCN No. 12/2022-23 in FORM-GST- DRC-01 dated 12.12.2022 issued by Respondent at Annexure-A for the period April 2020 to September 2020;
b) Hold that the pre-sale and post-sale services provided by the Petitioner to its Foreign Affiliates is not in the nature of 'intermediary' under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and that such service qualifies as 'export of service' under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act;
c) Hold that the Petitioner is not an intermediary' in terms of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and does not meet the requirements of intermediary that are laid down in the CBIC Circular dated 20.09.2021;
d) pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature circumstances of the case may require.” NC: 2024:KHC:38510
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
The issue involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in relation to the very same petitioner in M/s.Amazon Development Centre India Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax & Another – W.P.No.13007/2024 Dated 17.09.2024, wherein it is held as under:-
In the light of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances narrated supra and the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act in terms of the Circular dated 20.09.2021 and the Customer support services provided by the petitioner to foreign affiliates qualify as export of service under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act and consequently, the impugned orders and show cause notice deserve to be quashed.
In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Order-in-Appeal at Annexure-A dated 04.01.2024 insofar as it relates to rejection of the NC: 2024:KHC:38510 refund claim of the petitioner pertaining to the issue of intermediary / intermediary services is hereby quashed. (iii) The impugned show cause notice at Annexure-M dated 01.09.2022 issued by the respondents seeking recovery of refund sanctioned in relation to customer support services in favour of the petitioner is hereby quashed. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to contest the remaining issues before the GST Appellate Tribunal as and when the same is constituted by the Central Government.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition also deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned show cause notice at Annexure-A dated 12.12.2022 issued by the respondents seeking recovery of refund sanctioned in relation to customer support services in favour of the petitioner is hereby quashed. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SV/SRL
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.