Annual Tax & Corporate Law Digest 2025: Complete High Court Cases [Part XVIII]

Presannaraj vs TheSuperintendent of GST and Central excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1034

The Madras High Court has set aside the suo motu cancellation of a taxpayer’s GST ( Goods and Services Tax) registration on the ground of non-filing of returns for over six months, granting the petitioner an opportunity to regularise compliance subject to specific conditions.

Following that precedent, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed the petitioner to file all pending returns for the period prior to cancellation and pay applicable taxes, interest, fines, and late fees within 45 days. The Court barred the use of unutilised ITC for such payments, mandating that dues be cleared in cash. Any unutilised ITC can only be applied after departmental scrutiny and approval.

M/s. ChaitanyaBuilders& Leasing (P) Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1035

The High Court of Madras held that the proviso to Section 3-B(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, would not apply where a contractor assigns work to a registered sub-contractor.

The Madras High Court noted that the same issue was already decided in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), where the proviso was read down. That decision, based on Supreme Court rulings in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Builders Association of India, held that the proviso would not apply where the contractor assigned work to a registered sub-contractor. Relying on that precedent, the Court partly allowed the petition and read down the proviso, clarifying that it would not apply when the sub-contractor was a registered dealer.

Tamil NaduStateMarketing Corporation Limited vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1036

The High Court of Madras, held that the Enforcement Directorate’s search under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was lawful and did not amount to harassment, allowing proceedings against TASMAC to continue.

Justice S.M Subramaniam and Justice K.Rajasekar held that TASMAC officials, as public servants, were duty-bound to cooperate with the ED during the search. It noted that valid authorisation was produced as per Rule 3(4) of the PMLA Rules, and the Panchnama showed the search was peaceful, without coercion or damage, and witnessed by independent parties. The Court rejected allegations of fundamental rights violations and said that only affected individuals, not the State, should have approached the Court. It criticised the petition as an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Devendra SinghRathorevs CGST and CX and Anr CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1037

The Gauhati High Court set aside the order rejecting the revocation application on the grounds that the Goods and Services Tax registration was canceled without providing proper notice.

Considering the facts and circumstances on the record, the single bench of Justice Robin Phukan Court is inclined to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned cancellation order dated 04.12.2023. The respondent authorities are directed to verify whether any further amount is due from the petitioner and if any amount is found to be due.

Tara MarineSyndicatePrivate Limited & Anr. vs The Superintendent CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1038

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court permitted the filing of a connected application against a show cause notice (SCN) under section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and an adjudication order.

Considering the fact that an order in original has already been passed upon adjudication of the show cause notice,a single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury viewed that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same by way of a connected application as the same gives rise to a separate cause of action. Since, the show cause has already been adjudicated and has merged with the final order, the court viewed that the above writ petition can be disposed of by permitting the petitioners to challenge not only the show cause but also the adjudication order in original dated 5th February, 2025 in a composite manner in accordance with law, if so advised.

M/s. D.R.Patnaik vsCommissioner, GST and Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1039

The High Court of Orissa ina case regarding the differences of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in Form GSTR-3B against Form GSTR-2A, quashed the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) order in violation of the Natural Justice Principle.

This Court is persuaded to believe that the proper authority has failed to consider the reply to show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-06 along with other documents uploaded. The bench set aside the Order-in- Original dated 20.02.2025 vide Annexure-7 as also Summary Order dated 24.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act by the Additional Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Commissionerate, Rourkela-Opposite Party No.1 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and remitted the matter to the said authority concerned for fresh adjudication.

V. EagleSecurities vsJoint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise & anr. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1040

In a scathing rebuke to tax authorities, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an assessment order issued against a deceased individual, condemning the Assessing Officer (AO) for acting in "sheer ignorance of law" or under a "pre-determined mind" to pass the order despite knowing the legal impossibility of such action.

The division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja delivered the strong-worded judgment while hearing a writ petition filed by the legal heir of late Sanjeev Shyam, the sole proprietor of M/s V. Eagle Securities Services.

D.Sivanandam vsTheAssistant Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1041

The Madras High Court has dismissed a service tax imposition on the distribution of SIM cards, recharge coupons, and value-added services, reiterating that these do not constitute taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax vs. MS Suzlon Energy Ltd., which held that customized engineering drawings are not goods but services, supporting the non-taxability of SIM cards under service tax provisions.

The court directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks. The respondents were instructed to pass orders after considering the petitioner’s objections, providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, and adhering to the cited judicial precedents.

Salem TextilesLimitedvs The Superintendent of Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1042

The Madras High Court has struck down Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and 2002, declaring it inconsistent with Rules 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and 2002, and ultra vires Section 37(2)(xxviii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court also set aside a demand order and a recovery notice issued against Salem Textiles Limited, directing a fresh hearing.

The Court directed the commissioner to pass orders within four weeks after hearing the petitioner’s submissions.

The court held that failure to appear on the specified date would result in the withdrawal of the benefits granted under the order. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Ramadoss SrikanthivsThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1043

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging reassessment notices and an order issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-2016, ruling that the notices were validly issued within the extended limitation period provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).

The court observed that TOLA extended the deadline for actions due between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 to 30.06.2021. The court held that the period from the deemed notice’s issuance (31.03.2021) to the supply of information on 02.06.2022 and the two-week response period, was excluded from limitation calculations. The court dismissed the writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Tvl.ArunTraders vs TheUnion of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1044

The Madras High Court has restored a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) appeal considering the petitioner’s inadvertent failure to pay the mandatory 10% pre-deposit and directed the petitioner to deposit the pre-deposit amount within two weeks and ordered the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal within three months thereafter.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the petitioner’s failure to deposit the pre-deposit was due to inadvertence. The court directed the petitioner to pay the required pre-deposit within two weeks from the receipt of the court’s order in the interest of justice.

Purple ProductsPrivateLimited vs Union of India through CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1045

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the customs department has the power to issue show cause notices (SCNs) even when a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) like the ASEAN-India FTA is involved. The court rejected the importers’ plea that the customs authorities could not take action without first using the dispute resolution process under the trade agreement.

The court, led by Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, observed that international treaties like the ASEAN-India FTA do not automatically become part of Indian law unless they are passed by Parliament. Since Article 24 had not been incorporated into any Indian law or rule, the court said it could not be enforced in Indian courts. The court also noted that the Customs Act clearly gave authorities the power to investigate and take action in cases involving fraud or misrepresentation.

M/S NRM METALS(INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1046

In a significant ruling for State Goods and Services Tax (GST) administrations, the Gujarat High Court has held that the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on summons, notices or provisional-attachment orders issued by State GST officers does not make those instruments invalid.

Rejecting the DIN objection, the Bench observed that Circular 37/2019 is addressed solely to commissioners and officers of the Central tax administration. No parallel circular has been issued by the Gujarat GST commissionerate, nor do the GGST Act or its rules prescribe a DIN system. “Circular No. 37 of 2019 cannot be said to be applicable to communications issued by State Tax authorities,” the judges wrote, adding that there is currently “no mechanism” within the state framework to generate DINs.

VaishnodeviAdivsoryPrivate Limited vs The State of Bihar CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1047

The Patna High Court recently dealt with the principles of natural justice under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, setting aside an assessment order that rejected the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) that was concluded on the basis of extraneous material without giving the assessee an opportunity to respond.

The Division Bench further referenced the Supreme Court decision in Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2010) where it was held that quasi-judicial authorities must base their decisions on disclosed materials and give affected parties an opportunity to respond. Another interesting observation in Oryx Fisheries (supra) was where the Apex Court held that “justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well”.

GenesysInternationalCorp. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1048

The Bombay HighCourt, in yet another instance, has underscored the requisite jurisdictional parameters to be satisfied by the Income Tax Department to effectuate rthe eopening of an income tax assessment after a period of 4 years from the relevant assessment year.

Observing that the revenue failed to satisfy the jurisdictional parameters for reopening the assessment beyond 4 years, the Bombay High Court stated that proceedings to reopen an assessment are not akin to review proceedings.

In light of the circumstances, the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and made the rule absolute, thereby quashing the reassessment notice dated 30 March 2021, the order rejecting objections dated 8 February 2022, and the draft assessment order dated 14 March 2022.

Skytech RollingMillPvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1049

The High Court of Bombay held that a cash credit account is not the property of the account holder and therefore cannot be provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax (MGST) Act,2017.

The division bench comprising Justice Jithendra Jain and Justice M.S Sonak noted that no contrary judgments were presented and reaffirmed that a cash credit account could not be considered the account holder’s property under Section 83 of the MGST Act.It directed the authorities to withdraw the attachment letter dated 8 May 2025 issued to ICICI Bank and inform the bank within 24 hours.

Sanjay KumarAgarwal vsUnion of India

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1050

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that benefits under the Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) Scheme could not be denied to a castor oil exporter merely because of a change in the method of quality testing. The court directed the government to refund over Rs. 4.33 crore to the petitioner, ruling that the change in test did not alter the nature of the product being exported.

A division bench led by Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the earlier ruling on duty drawback applied equally to the present case, as the core issue was the same. The court also referred to several judgments which held that benefits under government schemes could not be denied for export contracts executed before a change in rules or testing procedures.

MANSURA BRUSHWORKSTHROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAMMAD HASHIM vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODSANDSERVICE TAX DGST & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1051

The Delhi HighCourt recently retracted the suspension of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of an appellant against whom the department had initiated action while he was unable to access the GST portal to reply to a show-cause notice.

The bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, addressing the petitioner’s grievance regarding inability to access the GST portal, directed the restoration of access for a period of at least 30 days to enable the petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The Court further directed the authorities to take a decision within 30 days from the date of appellant's reply.

Union of IndiavsFlemingo Duty Free Shop Private Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1052

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that the levy of GST on revenue share or minimum guarantee amounts paid by duty-free shop operators at airports is not valid under GST law, as such supplies qualify as zero-rated under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act.

The court clarified that authorities are free to examine whether the transactions were genuinely revenue-neutral for the period before April 2021 and take action as per law if not. The direction requiring payment of GST with refund claims from April 2021 onwards was left undisturbed. The Airports Authority’s refund application was directed to be processed within four weeks, along with applicable interest. The writ appeal was dismissed.

M/sHimalayaCommunication Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India and others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1053

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that denial of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) solely on the ground of the supplier’s GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration being cancelled retrospectively, without verifying the genuineness of the underlying transaction, is unjustified.

The Court noted that the sole reason for denial of ITC was the retrospective cancellation of the supplier’s registration, without any enquiry into whether the transaction was genuine. JusticesTarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja observed that the authorities failed to examine any documents to ascertain the authenticity of the transaction and had instead proceeded directly to issue notices under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act.

Bank of Indiavs DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1054

The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Bank of India (BOI) from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The issue before the bench was whether the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI under the Scheme can be treated as 'interest' as defined under Section 2(7) of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on bill of exchange drawn or made in India.”

Amar NathJaiswal vs TheAssistant Commissioner of State Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1055

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court stayed a GST demand issued against a taxpayer after input tax credit (ITC) was denied for one supplier without any reasoning. The court found the denial arbitrary and also questioned whether the demand was issued within the time limit set by law.

A single bench led by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury found that the petitioner had raised serious concerns, both about the limitation period and the lack of justification in the ITC denial. The court directed that the impugned GST demand be stayed until December 2025 or until further orders. The court also allowed the State six weeks to file an affidavit in opposition, and permitted the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks thereafter.

Sri BalajiTollways(Madurai) Private Limited vs The Deputy State Tax Office CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1056

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand of ₹16.67 crore raised against a tollway company, holding that the proceedings were mechanical and failed to consider the assessee’s reply.

Observing that the demand had been affirmed in a mechanical manner, without due consideration of the appellant’s submissions or evidence, the Court ruled that the assessment order violated principles of natural justice. The Court accordingly quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits.

Sas HotelsAndEnterprises Limited vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1057

The Madras High Court has condoned a 58-day delay in filing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal, caused by the pendency of a rectification application, and directed the authorities to hear the appeal on merits.

JusticeKrishnan Ramasamy, after examining the facts, found the explanation for the delay to be genuine and held that a party’s bonafide reliance on pending rectification proceedings is a valid ground for delay. Observing that justice would be served by allowing the appeal to be heard, the Court set aside the rejection order and condoned the delay, subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to admit the appeal and dispose of it on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Commissioner ofIncomeTax vs M/s.Rane Brake Lining Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1058

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be granted without reducing the amount allowed under Section 80IB.

The Court also ruled on a second issue concerning the inclusion of scrap sales in total turnover for computing 80HHC benefits. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in CIT v. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries, it held that proceeds from scrap sales cannot form part of total turnover for the purpose of 80HHC computation. With these findings, the High Court answered both substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Siva Industries&Holdings Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1059

The Madras High Court has held that reopening of an income tax assessment without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is invalid in law.

The bench of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan restated that if a notice under Section 143(2) is not issued prior to completing a reassessment, the entire process is invalidated referring to its previous decisions in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO and CIT v. Alstom T & D India Ltd. Accordingly, the Court held the reopening of assessment to be legally untenable and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. Since the reopening itself was declared bad in law, the Court declined to examine the merits of the case.

M/s. PioneerProducts vsThe State Tax Officer (FAC) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1060

The Madras High Court has held that before passing an ex-parte order, the tax authority must send at least one reminder notice through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) or any other valid mode as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act.

"When an ex-parte order is passed, the respondent should have sent at least one reminder notice through RPAD or by way of any other mode as specified under Section 169 of the Act," the Court observed. The Madras High Court rejected the challenged assessment judgment and sent the case to the assessing authority for further review, taking into account the petitioner's offer to pay 25% of the contested tax.

Bajaj WheelsPrivateLimited & anr. vs The Union of India & ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1061

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court remanded the appeal of Bajaj Wheels to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) adjudicating authority on finding that the authority failed to examine the legality of the ITC availed. The court found that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

A single bench of Justice Raja BasuChowdhury, while setting aside the order impugned, including the order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 30th October, 2023, let the matter stand remanded back before the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merits. The adjudicating authority is directed to decide upon the aforesaid within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order by issuing an appropriate notice of hearing and by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

M/s. Mahindra&Mahindra Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1062

In a ruling in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, the Bombay High Court stated that assessing officer do not have the jurisdiction to go behind net profit in profit and loss (P&L)account except as per explanation to Section 115J of Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik observed that Section 115 J of the 1961 Act stipulates that, after certain adjustments, the total income chargeable to tax for a company whose total income as calculated under the Act 1961's provisions is less than 30% of the book profit will be 30% of the book profit as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act 1956.

MESSRS ADDWRAPPACKAGINGPVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1063

The Gujarat High Court in a recent case held that omission of Rule 96(10) of Central goods and Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 operates prospectively but applies to all pending proceedings.

The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray viewed that the 2024 Rules have been issued by Notification No.20/2024, and Rule 10 of those Rules has eliminated Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules with immediate effect. This would lead to three scenarios: first, whether it would apply retroactively; second, whether it would apply prospectively; or third, whether it would apply prospectively but also to "pending proceedings." Additionally, Rule 10 of the Rules, 2024, applies to ongoing cases as well as prospectively.

FcbulkaAdvertising PvtLtd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1064

The Bombay High Court held that a claim of breach of Article 265 of the constitution cannot be alleged or sustained based upon a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and not a final order by assessing officer.

The Division Bench, consisting of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that if the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and not a final order, the Petitioner cannot base their claim on this communication to allege breach of Article 265 of the Constitution. The communication dated 29 November 2018 is based on preliminary verification and is subject to processing, and therefore, it is in the nature of a preliminary/prima facie/interlocutory order.

Madurai MultiFunctionalComplex Private Limited vs The Madurai Corporation CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1065

The Madras High Court has held that the Railway Land Development Authority (RLDA) is not a juristic entity and set aside the property tax imposed by the municipality on railway land being unconstitutional.

A division bench of Justice G.R.Swaminathan and Justice M.Jothiraman observed that RLDA is not a separate entity at all. It is an alter-ego of Railways. RLDA cannot hold properties in its own name. At no point of time, the title over the site was transferred from Railways to RLDA or from RLDA to Ircon or from Ircon to the MMFC (the petitioner herein). Merely because Ircon was permitted to construct the building or the petitioner herein was permitted to develop it further would not result in vesting of the title over the building either in Ircon or in the petitioner. The expression “vesting” has a technical meaning.

VIACOM 18 MEDIAPVT LTDvs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1066

In a decision affecting how payments for satellite transponder services are taxed, the BombayHigh Court has ordered the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) to closely examine whether fees paid for such services should be classified as “royalty” under Indian tax laws and the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

Highlighting this gap, the Court held that deciding such a complex tax question requires a thorough factual inquiry, which can only be done by the tax authorities themselves. The Court sent the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with clear instructions to verify if Intelsat Corporation was held liable to pay tax in India for the years in question. If Intelsat is not taxable, Viacom 18 should not face withholding tax liability.

Sundyne PumpsandCompressors India Pvt Ltd vs The Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1067

The Bombay High Court ruled that engineering and design services provided to foreign organizations are zero-rated supplies and allowed the assessee to a reimbursement of any unutilized the ITC under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), 2017.

The bench said that the assessee for the same services applied for and received a refund for the April 2020–March 2021 and April–June 2021 periods. The responders chose not to appeal the two previous orders that gave the assessee a refund. The assumption for the refunds was that the assessee's services qualified as "export of services." Finality has been obtained on these orders. After this, the department cannot deny the refund claim on the grounds that the assessee's services do not constitute "export of service," particularly if the client agreements and all other relevant information are still the same.