Eranst And Young Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Cgst Appeals -II-Delhi

The petitioner, an Indian Branch Office of M/s Ernst & Young Limited, has initiated a legal challenge against an order-in-appeal dated March 15, 2022 (referred to as ‘the impugned order’), issued by the Additional Commissioner of CGST Appeal-II (referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority’). The impugned order is the subject of contention in the current petition.

The specifics of the impugned order, including its context, reasoning, and implications, are not provided in the summary. However, it’s evident that the petitioner believes there are legal grounds to challenge the decision made by the Appellate Authority. This suggests that the petitioner may disagree with the conclusions, interpretations, or procedures followed in the impugned order.

The petition likely includes arguments and evidence aimed at demonstrating why the impugned order should be overturned or revised. These arguments may be based on statutory provisions, legal precedents, factual inaccuracies, procedural irregularities, or other relevant factors.

Given the involvement of a multinational company like Ernst & Young Limited, the stakes involved in this legal dispute could be significant. The outcome of this petition may have implications not only for the petitioner but also potentially for broader legal interpretations or practices within the realm of GST (Goods and Services Tax) appeals.

Overall, the petitioner seeks judicial review of the impugned order, highlighting perceived flaws or injustices in the decision-making process. The resolution of this legal challenge will depend on the strength of the petitioner’s arguments, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, and the discretion of the court or relevant adjudicatory body responsible for evaluating the petition.

The petitioner, an Indian Branch Office of M/s Ernst & Young Limited, challenges an order-in-appeal dated 15.03.2022, issued by the Additional Commissioner of CGST Appeal-II, which upheld the rejection of refund applications for input tax credit (ITC) by the Adjudicating Authority. These refund applications were related to the export of services from December 2017 to March 2020.

The Adjudicating Authority had denied the refund applications on the grounds that the petitioner, being classified as an ‘intermediary,’ had its place of business in India, making the place of service delivery in India, rather than where the recipient of services was located.

The petitioner appealed these decisions but was unsuccessful. As per the statutory provisions, the petitioner has the right to appeal to the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, since the tribunal hasn’t been constituted yet, the petitioner seeks remedy through the court.

Given the absence of the appellate tribunal, the court deems it appropriate to entertain the petition.

In the factual context, the petitioner operates as an Indian Branch Office of M/s Ernst & Young Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom.

The petitioner, an Indian Branch Office of M/s Ernst & Young Limited, contests an order-in-appeal dated 15.03.2022, issued by the Additional Commissioner of CGST Appeal-II, rejecting appeals against orders-in-original dated 25.01.2020, 09.12.2020, and 21.05.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division Vasant Kunj. These original orders denied the petitioner’s refund applications for input tax credit (ITC) concerning the export of services from December 2017 to March 2020. The denial was based on the grounds that the petitioner, being an ‘intermediary,’ rendered services in India, where its business was situated, rather than where the service recipients were located.

The petitioner, per the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has the right to appeal to the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 112. However, since the Tribunal hasn’t been constituted yet, the petitioner resorts to petitioning the court.

The petitioner, an Indian Branch Office of M/s Ernst & Young Limited, a UK-incorporated company, obtained permission from the Reserve Bank of India in 2008. Before the enactment of the Act, it was registered with the Central Excise Department as a separate entity, offering various services such as management consultancy, rent-a-cab scheme operation, manpower recruitment, and legal consultancy for service tax purposes.

M/s Ernst & Young Limited, the petitioner’s parent company, entered service agreements with various entities within the Ernst & Young group (EY Entities), including EY US, EY Australia, EY NZ, and EY UK, on an arm’s length basis. These agreements mandated the petitioner to provide professional services to the overseas entities through its Indian Branch. Documents provided include agreements between E&Y Limited and EY US (29.09.2009), EY Australia (25.10.2010), EY NZ (15.01.2018), and EY UK (20.12.2012).

The dispute arises from the denial of ITC refund by the Adjudicating Authority, contending that the petitioner’s services were intermediary services, thus taxable in India. However, the petitioner argues that its services constitute export of services and thus merit ITC refund. With the absence of the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner seeks redressal through the court.

Download PDF:
Eranst And Young Limited

For Reference Visit:
Delhi High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law