Cable and Wireless Global India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(15); GST statutory provision - Section 2(6); GST statutory provision - Section 2(71); GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 24; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 51

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: are clearly in validation of the fact that services ha d been exported by the Delhi BO and which has now clearly disclosed an additional bank account maintained at Bangalore. That these remittances are connected with the services rendered by the Delhi BO to VGSL was neither questioned nor doubted by the respondents before us. The objection as taken thus clearly appears to be overly technical and unsustainable. Operative disposition: We accordingly allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 07 June 2022 which had upheld the Order-in-Original dated 29 June 2021 . The prayer for refund shall be attended to accordingly and disposed of with due
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

amounting to INR 47, 33,053/-. The p rayer for refund has come to be negated in terms of an Order -in-Original dated 29 June 2021 and which has been affirmed by the Order-in-Appeal dated 07 June 2022 passed by the second respondent.

2. On facts which have remained undisputed, it would appear that the petitioner is a company incorporated in India and has its registered office in Karnataka and Branch Offices2 in Delhi and Maharashtra. It is stated to be engaged in providing B usiness Support Services to Vodafone Group Services Limited 3 from its BO situate in Delhi. Admittedly, the petitioner holds registration certificates under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 4 3. The petitioner is stated to have entered into an I nter-Company Agreement with VGSL for providing Business Support Services on 16 August 2018. Pursuant to the aforesaid, it is its case that the Delhi BO of the petitioner provided various services in discharge of its obligations flowing from that Agreement and raised invoices on VGSL and which invoices had recorded the GST number and address of the Delhi BO. The petitioner avers that in Financial Year for both its Delhi and Bangalore establishments.

The only objection which is raised and which constitutes the basis for denial of refund is the remittance by V GSL to the bank account of the Bangalore office. 9. In light of the disclosures made by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier orders passed on this writ petition, it transpires that while originally t he writ petitioner, while applying for registration for its Delhi BO had not provided any details of a bank account at Bangalore, at the time of the first core field amendment and review exercise and the filing submitted on 29 December 2020, bank account details including in respect of the one maintained at the Standard Chartered Bank Limited at Bangalore were also uploaded and mapped along with the original registration.

are clearly in validation of the fact that services ha d been exported by the Delhi BO and which has now clearly disclosed an additional bank account maintained at Bangalore. That these remittances are connected with the services rendered by the Delhi BO to VGSL was neither questioned nor doubted by the respondents before us. The objection as taken thus clearly appears to be overly technical and unsustainable. 11. We bear in mind that the IGST Act while defining the expression “export of service” in Section 2(6) lays emphasis on the payment for such service being received by the “supplier of service”. Section 2(6)(iv) does not tie the receipt of paym ent to a particular bank account. Of equal significance is how the IGST Act identifies and fixes the “location of the supplier of services” in Section 2(15) and which reads thus:- “(15) “location of the supplier of services” means,— (a) where a supply is m ade from a place of business for which the registration has been obtained, the location of such place of business (b) where a supply is made from a place other than the place of business for which registration has been obtained (a fixed establishment elsewhere), the location of such fixed establishment; ; (c) where a supply is made from more than one establishment, whether the place of business or fixed establishment, the location of the establishment most directly concerned with the provision of the supply; and (d) in absence of such places, the location of the usual place of residence of the supplier;”

12. It is apparent from a reading of the aforesaid provision that the location of the supplier , in the facts of the present case , would

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

service is indelibly linked to the payment for such service being received by the supplier , the claim for refund would not sustain. The stand, in essence, is that notwithstanding services having been provided by the Delhi BO and amounting to an export of service, since the payment was received by the Bangalore office, the claim for refund was rightly negated since the payment for such service was not received by the asserted supplier. 5. Ms. Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken us through Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 6 “2. Definitions which defines “export of services” in the following terms:-

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

of Section 25 of the CGST Act to contend that once a person obtains a registration in a State or Union Territory in respect of an establishment, such establishments are liable to be treated as establishments of distinct persons for the purposes of th e statute. This, according to Ms. Bhatnagar, thus constitutes a departure from the general principle of a branch or an establishment not being liable to be viewed as a separate juridical entity. 8. However, and on going through the returns which have been filed in these proceedings, we find that the e xport of s ervices by the petitioner is an aspect which is neither disputed nor doubted.

registered place of business which has made the supply and thus the remittance being directed towards a particular bank account paling into insignificance. 15. The argument based on sub-sections (4) and (5) is equally misconceived. One must bear in mind that the CGST Act is principally concerned with the levy of a tax on intra -State supply of goods and thus presupposes the possibility of an entity having more than one establishment or a place of business in different States of the Union. It is this basic objective of the enactment that informs subsections (4) and (5) of Section 25 and the Legislature thus, out of abundant caution, having overridden the otherwise jurisprudential precept of branch offices not being separate and distinct juridical entities. 16. On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid, we find ourselves unable to sustain the impugned orders. 17. We accordingly allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 07 June 2022 which had upheld the Order-in-Original dated 29 June 2021 . The prayer for refund shall be attended to accordingly and disposed of with due expedition.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Cable and Wireless Global India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Others concerns issue and context: are clearly in validation of the fact that services ha d been exported by the delhi bo and which has now clearly disclosed an additional bank account maintained at bangalore. that these remittances are connected with the services rendered by the delhi bo to vgsl was neither questioned nor doubted by the respondents before us. the objection as taken thus clearly appears to be overly technical and unsustainable. operative disposition: we accordingly allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order-in-appeal dated 07 june 2022 which had upheld the order-in-original dated 29 june 2021 . the prayer for refund shall be attended to accordingly and disposed of with due The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 14764/2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: are clearly in validation of the fact that services ha d been exported by the Delhi BO and which has now clearly disclosed an additional bank account maintained at Bangalore. That these remittances are connected with the services rendered by the Delhi BO to VGSL was neither questioned nor doubted by the respondents before us. The objection as taken thus clearly appears to be overly technical and unsustainable. Operative disposition: We accordingly allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 07 June 2022 which had upheld the Order-in-Original dated 29 June 2021 . The prayer for refund shall be attended to accordingly and disposed of with due Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(15); GST statutory provision - Section 2(6); GST statutory provision - Section 2(71); GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 24; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 51—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(15); GST statutory provision - Section 2(6); GST statutory provision - Section 2(71); GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 24; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 51 and the decision date 2024-09-26; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Cable and Wireless Global India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Others, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 14764/2022, and the decision is dated 2024-09-26. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(15); GST statutory provision - Section 2(6); GST statutory provision - Section 2(71); GST statutory provision - Section 8; GST statutory provision - Section 22; GST statutory provision - Section 24; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 51. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 2 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2(15) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2(6) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2(71) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 8 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 22 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 24 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 25 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 51 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Refunds

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY