The Gujarat High Court, while upholding the validity of section 13(8)(b) read with Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 held that the service provided by intermediary in India cannot be treated as “export of services” under the IGST Act, 2017. It was observed that it is rightly included in Section 13(8) (b) of the IGST Act to consider the location of supplier of service as place of supply so as to attract CGST and SGST.
The petitioner, Material Recycling Association of India is an association comprising the recycling industry engaged in manufacture of metals and casting etc., for various upstream industries in India. The members of the petitioner also act as agents for scrape, recycling companies based outside India engaged in providing business promotion and marketing services for principals located outside India.
The petitioner submitted that the member of the petitioner association receives only the commission upon receipt of sale proceeds by its foreign client in convertible foreign exchange.
Accordingly, IGST cannot be levied on the members of the petitioner association, who are engaged in the transaction of export of service, covered under the Section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017 which provides for “zero rated supply”.
The petitioner, has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 and to hold the same as ultra vires under Articles 14, 19, 265 and 286 of the Constitution of India with a direction to the respondent to refund of IGST paid on services provided by the members of the petitioner association and to their clients located outside India.
The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Bharghav D. Karia held that the provision of Section 13(8)(b) read with Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 are not ultra vires or unconstitutional in any manner.
“It therefore, appears that the basic logic or inception of section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 considering the place of supply in case of intermediary to be the location of supply of service is in order to levy CGST and SGST and such intermediary service therefore, would be out of the purview of IGST,” the bench observed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
