The foreign company and the Indian company incorporated under different statutes would not be governed by the provisions of distinct person since both are separate legal entities. Therefore, the benefits of export of services cannot be denied to the Indian Companies.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund — The appellant filed GST refund claims under the category exports of Goods & Services without payment of tax (Accumulated ITC). The appellant had exported services to M/s Zumen Inc, USA and availed ITC of CGST, SCGT & IGST in accordance with Section 16 and filed refund applications in terms of Section 54. SCN both dated 28.09.2020 were issued proposing to reject the refund claims on the grounds that the appellant failed to satisfy the condition under section 2(6) (v) of IGST Act, 2017. Thereafter, the respondent vide impugned orders rejected the refund claims. The appellant filed appeal on the ground that M/s. Zumen Technologies Pvt Ltd is a company incorporated in India and M/s.Zumen Inc is incorporated in USA on 15.7.2019; that these are two different entities and the different Board of Directors but the respondent concluded that the directors are same and it is same establishment is incorrect. The appellant is providing Export of services to M/s Zumen Inc having office at United States. The authority observed that establishment means which are registered place of business. However, both India subsidiary company and other group companies are different persons since they are registered/ incorporated in their own country. Therefore, in terms of the statutory provisions also the Export of Services between Indian Companies and its group of companies cannot be interpreted to mean the condition 'merely an establishment of distinct person to refute the export of services benefits.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority allowed the Appeal.
The foreign company and the Indian company incorporated under different statutes would not be governed by the provisions of distinct person since both are separate legal entities. Therefore, the benefits of export of services cannot be denied to the Indian Companies.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund — The appellant filed GST refund claims under the category exports of Goods & Services without payment of tax (Accumulated ITC). The appellant had exported services to M/s Zumen Inc, USA and availed ITC of CGST, SCGT & IGST in accordance with Section 16 and filed refund applications in terms of Section 54. SCN both dated 28.09.2020 were issued proposing to reject the refund claims on the grounds that the appellant failed to satisfy the condition under section 2(6) (v) of IGST Act, 2017. Thereafter, the respondent vide impugned orders rejected the refund claims. The appellant filed appeal on the ground that M/s. Zumen Technologies Pvt Ltd is a company incorporated in India and M/s.Zumen Inc is incorporated in USA on 15.7.2019; that these are two different entities and the different Board of Directors but the respondent concluded that the directors are same and it is same establishment is incorrect. The appellant is providing Export of services to M/s Zumen Inc having office at United States. The authority observed that establishment means which are registered place of business. However, both India subsidiary company and other group companies are different persons since they are registered/ incorporated in their own country. Therefore, in terms of the statutory provisions also the Export of Services between Indian Companies and its group of companies cannot be interpreted to mean the condition 'merely an establishment of distinct person to refute the export of services benefits.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority allowed the Appeal.