In a recent decision the Bombay High Court observed that providing Satellite derived 3D model services is “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act).
The question for determination was to whether the services rendered by the petitioner of providing Satellite derived 3D model services, would fall within the purview of “export of services” as defined under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act or would be categorized as Online Information Database Access or Retrieval services as defined under Section 2(17) of the IGST Act, in the context of Section 13 of the IGST Act.
The petitioner, Globolive 3D Private Limited, has contended that to provide technical service, the petitioner imported Very High Resolution (VHR) stereo satellite images from one M/s. 4 Earth Intelligence Limited. In terms of the scope of the service, the petitioner also processed and digitalized the satellite images. After processing, the 3D city models were sent to Abu Dhabi Digital Authority (ADDA) via file transfer protocol.
The petitioner contended that the aforesaid transaction as undertaken by the petitioner amounted to export of service as defined in Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“IGST Act”). It was contended that all the conditions namely condition nos.(i) to (v) under the definition of “export of services” are met by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner was entitled to claim a refund of unutilized ITC accumulated due to export of such services, in terms of provision of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) and rules made thereunder.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Jitendra Jain and GS Kulkarni observed that “Further, the establishment of the petitioner (supplier of service) and the recipient of service (Emirates Defence Industries Co.) were not establishments of distinct person under Explanation 1 below Section 8. The petitioner had received consideration in convertible foreign exchange as seen from the copy of invoice as placed on record in regard to which there is no dispute. It is thus clear that the petitioner certainly qualified the requirement of Section 2(6) that it was dealing in export of services in relation to the Agreement in question.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
