The claim of Input Tax Credit raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained when the supplying/selling dealer has not paid up the amounts to the Government; despite collection of tax from the purchasing dealer.

The petitioner’s claim for refund was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the sole ground that the place of supply of services was in India and therefore, the services rendered could not be considered as export of services.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning a show cause notice proposing the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration. The petitioner had applied for revocation of the order canceling its GST registration however, the said application was also rejected by an order.

The Applicant sought bail for the offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) of the Act.

If the dealer does not come forward for depositing the penalty amount as determined under section 129(3) of the Act the proceedings ought to have been initiated under sections 73, 74, and 75 of the Act

The petitioner is not aggrieved by cancellation of his GST Registration; he is aggrieved because the registration has been cancelled with retrospective effect.

The petitioner sought directions to the Respondents to withdraw the negative block of the electronic credit ledger of the Petitioner as visible from the extract of credit ledger

The issue as to whether a show cause notice is bad and lacks detail or is unintelligible to qualify to be a show cause notice cannot be put in a straight-jacket formula and has to be decided considering the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand.

Since prima facie, the order impugned is an ex-parte order, we set aside the same and remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to pass fresh orders after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

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

Since the recipient of the Services is outside India, the professional services rendered by the petitioner would fall within the scope of the definition of ‘export of services’ as defined under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act.

Therefore, insofar as providing Market Research Services is concerned, the petitioner cannot be held to be an intermediary. The issue involved is covered by the decision of this Court in M/s Ernst And Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner.