Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 --- Refund —- The petitioner challenged Appeal orders dated 07.02.2022, 25.03.2022 and 24.05.2022. The petitioner claimed refund of accumulated ITC in relation to export of services. The Adjudicating Authority had allowed the applications but the department filed appeal against such orders. The Appellate Authority allowed the Appeals. The petitioner had claimed refund of ITC on the ground that it related to remuneration for services rendered to overseas entities, in terms of an Advisory Service Agreement. The Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal of the department on the ground that the petitioner’s remuneration under the said Agreement was based on costs plus a mark up of 15% and the petitioner was involved in facilitating supply of goods by various suppliers to the foreign entities. The petitioner was acting as an agent, and the services provided by it fell under the category of intermediary services, as such, services rendered by the petitioner could not be treated as export of services. The court observed that there is merit in the contention that the services relating to market research and developing strategies cannot be classified as intermediary services. The Court relied the decision in M/s Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi & Anr.

Held that:- The Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications before the Adjudicating Authority for considering afresh in light of the decision of this Court in M/s Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi & Anr.