Zero-Rated Services Refund: Principal Service Provider Wins Input Tax Credit Claim Under IGST Act Section 2(13)

The SC resolved a dispute over input tax credit refund for zero-rated services. The court determined the petitioner was a principal service provider, not an intermediary, despite being labeled an "agent" in the agreement. By referencing precedents like Ernst And Young, the SC overturned previous rejections and directed expedited processing of the petitioner's refund claim, clarifying the interpretation of intermediary services under the IGST Act.

---

---

Issues involved: Refund of unutilized input tax credit for zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of the IGST Act; Determination of petitioner's status as an intermediary in the context of services provided to a foreign affiliate.

Refund of unutilized input tax credit: The petitioner, engaged in providing bookkeeping, payroll, and accounting services through cloud technology to its UK affiliate, applied for a refund of unutilized input tax credit for export of services. However, the claim was rejected on the basis that the petitioner was deemed an intermediary, not the principal service provider, due to charging GBP 500 per workstation. The Appellate Authority upheld this view based on an agreement indicating the petitioner's role as an agent.

Status as an intermediary: The core question was whether the petitioner could be classified as an "intermediary" under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The agreement between the petitioner and its UK affiliate clarified that the petitioner was contracted to provide services directly, not acting as a middleman. Despite the agreement using the term "agent," the petitioner was the principal service provider, not facilitating services for others. This distinction was crucial in determining the petitioner's status.

Legal Precedents: The judgment referenced previous decisions to support the finding that the petitioner did not qualify as an intermediary. The cases of M/s Ernst And Young Limited and M/s Cube Highways and Transportation Assets Advisor Private Limited were cited to emphasize the interpretation of intermediary services involving three distinct entities, where the petitioner's role did not align with that of an intermediary.

Conclusion: The Court set aside the orders rejecting the refund claim, directing the respondents to process the petitioner's refund expeditiously. The judgment clarified that the petitioner's services did not fall under the definition of intermediary services, emphasizing the importance of contractual obligations and the actual provision of services in determining the petitioner's status.

---