Page 115 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] PUSHPENDRA KUMAR JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., VADODARA-II 329
8. On the first principle it is seen that the services has been exported by
the appellant and logically there should not be any tax liability on such exports.
Even on the first principle any tax paid on development of such service should
be refunded to the appellants. Availability of credit is also a kind of refund.
9. A perusal of the agreement of the appellant with SPIL shows that it
gives the Right of Supervision and Monitoring to the appellant. Para 2 of the
agreement reads as follows :
“ULT shall have right, but not the obligation, to direct, monitor and super-
vise all research, studies and trials by SPIL so that it meets with UTL’s ob-
jectives of Research and Development, and discuss the methodologies and
results of such research, studies or trials with the persons responsible for
the design and conduct of such research, studies or trials by or on behalf of
SPIL.”
It is also seen similarly the Para 6 prescribes the time schedule of the activity.
From the said clauses it is apparent that while the technology was being devel-
oped by SPIL. The appellant was directly involved in Supervision and Monitor-
ing even the time schedule and development was being decided mutually. From
the above it is apparent that while the technology was being prepared it was be-
ing monitored by the appellants themselves which in itself amounts to use of the
service.
10. The only fact that revenue has used to insist that the service was
provided to the appellant and exported by the appellant on the same day is that
the date of invoice is common. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the
service was not provided in one day, the service was provided in a particular
time duration and the service provided was being simultaneously used by the
appellant by Supervising and Monitoring the activity in the entire duration.
Thus, it cannot be correct to say that the service provided by the SPIL was not
used by the appellant. The revenue’s argument is that the entire service was pro-
vided on the date of invoice is totally fallacious and illogical. Thus, we hold that
the appellants received and consumed the service while they were participating
in the development of technology by supervising and monitoring the same.
11. In view of above we do not find any merit in the argument of the
revenue that the services provided by SPIL was not used by the appellant and
were exported as such. We find that the agreement in respect of SPARC is also
the same and, therefore, the arguments above are equally applicable to the ser-
vices provided by SPARC.
12. In view of above we do not find any merit in the arguments of the
revenue that services were exported without use by the appellant and, therefore,
no credit is admissible.
13. Appeal is consequently allowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 24-1-2020)

_______

GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  115