Skip to main content

Home » Laws » GST Case Laws » SUNDYNE PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HMD SEAL/LESS PUMPS INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – BOMBAY HIGH COURT

SUNDYNE PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HMD SEAL/LESS PUMPS INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – BOMBAY HIGH COURT

High Court, Bombay
B.P. Colabawalla, Justice & Firdosh P. Pooniawalla, Justice

SUNDYNE PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HMD SEAL/LESS PUMPS INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD)
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

WRIT PETITION No.15228 of 2023 dated 16.06.2025

Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 & Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 54 & Section 8
Rule Number : Rule 89
Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017
Decision : Disposed off

Refund – Unutilized ITC – Zero-rated supplies(Exports) – Refund denied on grounds petitioner acted as agency of foreign recipient – Petitioner supplies engineering services and goods to its group companies/related persons located outside India – Authorities held that fixed mark-up pricing, control clauses, and related-party relationship constituted “agency” under Section 2(5) of CGST Act – Petitioner contended to be independent contractor and not acting on behalf of any third party – Petitioner provides design and engineering services to its customers on principal-to-principal basis by employing its own manpower and other resources – No control by foreign recipient on petitioner – Relying on Xilinx India Technology Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Special Commissioner Zone VIII(2023) no agency exists as services rendered on principal-to-principal basis and no third party involved – CBIC Circular No.161/17/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 clarified transactions between sister/group companies and holding/subsidiary companies not covered under condition (v) to Section 2(6) of the IGST Act – Condition (v) of Section 2(6) IGST Act fully satisfied – Held: Writ petition disposed – Petitioner entitled to refund along with interest to be processed within four weeks .

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate with Jas Sanghavi, Mohit Raval, Vikas Poojary i/b PDS Legal, Advocates

Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.

🔒 Premium Content

Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.

Become Premium Member