2019 (2) TMI 384 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund claim – export of services – services rendered to M/s SurePrep LLC, USA for preparation of Income Tax Returns of the USA clients – Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 – Held that:- the services provided by the appellant fall under Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and not under Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. Besides, I also find that the Department has allowed refund claims for the earlier and subsequent period, hence denying the claim for the impugned period without change in circumstances, in my opinion, is devoid of merit and accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside – Appeal allowed – decided in the favor of the assessee. – Appeal No. ST/88185/2018 – A/85004/2019 – Dated:- 1-1-2019 – DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mrs. Puloma Dalal, C.A. for Appellant Shri S.K. Hattangadi, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against Order-in-A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e appellant submits that the appellants are engaged in providing Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) service in relation to preparation of Income Tax returns to clients of their principal based in USA. The appellant is an 100% DOU with the STPI. All the considerations were received by the appellant for providing the said services in convertible foreign exchange. It is her contention that the appellants have been providing the said services prior to the period in dispute and subsequently also. It is her contention that for the period prior to the impugned period, refund claims were processed and sanctioned and also for the subsequent period i.e. from October, 2016 to March, 2017, refund claims were also sanctioned by the Department. It is her contention that only for the period from April, 2016 to September, 2016, the refund claims were rejected alleging the services are not 'export'. The learned C.A. further argued that the present refund claim falls within the scope of Rule 3 o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
en consumed in the foreign territory. The findings of the learned adjudicating authority and confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the relevant data were processed in India and ultimately sent to the foreign company, hence not export service, is devoid of merit and substance. In my view, the services provided by the appellant fall under Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and not under Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. Besides, I also find that the Department has allowed refund claims for the earlier and subsequent period, hence denying the claim for the impugned period without change in circumstances, in my opinion, is devoid of merit and accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =