^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

NAVITAS EDUSERVICES PVT. LTD. vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS
(Delhi High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

VIBHU BAKHRU
TARA VITASTA GANJU

Pet. Counsel

Shashank Shekhar

Pranjal Srivastav

Res. Counsel

Akshay Amritanshu

Ashutosh Jain

Samyak Jain

Petitioner / Applicant	NAVITAS EDUSERVICES PVT. LTD.
Respondent	THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS
Court	Delhi High Court
State	Delhi
Date	Sep 19, 2023
Order No.	W.P.(C) 15764/2022 and CMNo. 8455/2023
Citation	2023(9) TAXREPLY 7973
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing an Order-in- Appeal dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 10.12.2021 was rejected. 2. The petitioner had filed an application for the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of exports without the payment of taxes. The said application was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the services provided by the petitioner were that of an intermediary and thus, the place of services was not located in India. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the services provided by it are on a principal-to-principal basis and that it is not involved in either arranging or facilitating the provisions of the principal services. 4. Prima facie, the said controversy is covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in M/s Ernst and Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi & Anr.: W.P (....