9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 88 - HC - GSTRefund claim - barred by time limitation or not - Intermediary or an independent service provider - services rendered by the petitioner to its overseas recipient constitute export of services exempt from GST liability or not - HELD THAT - A perusal of the material on record will indicate that under identical circumstances in the case of M/s. Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India others 2025 (5) TMI 2139 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT this Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an intermediary under Section 2 (13) of the IGST Act and provisions of the Finance Act 1994 and the services provided by the petitioner to its overseas service recipients / entities are that of an independent service provider which qualify as export of services under the service tax provisions and 2 (6) of the IGST Act and allowed and disposed of the petitions. In the instant case a perusal of the aforesaid Agreement will clearly indicate that at clause No. 10 that the petitioner is not an intermediary as wrongly held in the impugned order by the appellate authority and as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Order-in-Original granting refund in favour of the petitioner deserves to be upheld in the present petition. Under these circumstances it is clear that the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Amazon s case supra and the principles laid down therein are directly and squarely applicable to the subject Agreement in the present petition which accordingly deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 01.09.2023 passed by the appellate authority and restoring the Order-in-Original at Annexure-D dated 28.07.2022 for April 2022 and May 2022 and issue further directions in this regard. Conclusion - i) The petitioner is not an intermediary under the IGST Act or Finance Act but an independent service provider. ii) The services rendered qualify as export of services and are exempt from GST liability under the intermediary classification. iii) The refund claims filed under Section 54 of the CGST Act are maintainable and not barred by limitation. The impugned order at Annexure-F dated 01.09.2023 insofar as it relates to allowing the appeal in GST A.310/2022-23 passed by the appellate authority for April 2022 and May 2022 is hereby set aside - petition allowed.
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
1. Whether the petitioner qualifies as an 'intermediary' under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 and the Finance Act, 1994, or is an independent service provider supplying export of services. 2. Whether the services rendered by the petitioner to its overseas recipient constitute export of services exempt from GST liability. 3. Whether the refund claims filed by the petitioner under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 are barred by limitation or are maintainable in light of applicable notifications. 4. The applicability and interpretation of the Master Services Agreement between the petitioner and the overseas entity in determining the nature of the services provided. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the Petitioner's Status as 'Intermediary' or Independent Service Provider Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied on Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017, which defines 'intermediary' as a broker, agent, or any other person who arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services or both between two or more persons but does not supply on his own account. The Finance Act, 1994 and service tax jurisprudence were also considered. The Court extensively referred to precedents including the judgment in M/s Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. and the Apex Court's ruling in Bharati Cellular to delineate the characteristics of an intermediary vis-`a-vis an independent contractor. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that an intermediary must operate within a triangular relationship involving at least three parties: the principal, the intermediary, and the third party between whom the intermediary facilitates supply. The intermediary acts on behalf of the principal with a fiduciary relationship and exercises control to alter the principal's legal relationship with a third party. The petitioner, however, was found to have a principal-to-principal relationship with the overseas entity, providing services on its own account without facilitating or arranging supply between two other parties. Key Evidence and Findings: The Master Services Agreement was scrutinized, revealing that only two parties were involved-the petitioner and the overseas recipient. The petitioner provided software development services directly and was remunerated on a cost-plus-markup basis rather than commission or success-based fees typical of agency arrangements. The petitioner did not represent or bind the overseas entity in dealings with third parties. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the statutory definition and judicial principles, the Court concluded that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria for an intermediary. The absence of a triangular relationship, lack of fiduciary duties, and the nature of remuneration supported this conclusion. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's contention that the petitioner was an intermediary was rejected as the agreement and conduct did not reflect facilitation or arrangement between multiple parties. The petitioner's position as an independent service provider was upheld. Conclusion: The petitioner is not an 'intermediary' under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act or the Finance Act, 1994, but an independent service provider whose services qualify as export of services. 2. Qualification of Services as Export of Services and GST Liability Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, which defines export of services, and service tax provisions relating to export of services. Precedents including the Amazon case and Circulars issued by CBIC were referred to for guidance on the characterization of services and refund claims. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the petitioner's services were rendered directly to an overseas recipient without acting as an intermediary, the services qualify as export of services. The petitioner was thus not liable to pay GST on these supplies and was entitled to refund of IGST paid. Key Evidence and Findings: The Master Services Agreement showed services were rendered to an overseas entity, with payment in US dollars on a cost-plus-markup basis. The petitioner did not facilitate supply between multiple parties, negating intermediary classification. The refund claim was initially allowed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner but later reversed by the appellate authority, which the Court found erroneous. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal definition of export of services and the established principle that independent service providers supplying services abroad qualify for refund of IGST paid. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's rejection of refund claims on the basis of intermediary classification and GST liability was rejected. The petitioner's entitlement to refund was recognized. Conclusion: The services rendered by the petitioner qualify as export of services and are not subject to GST liability under the intermediary classification. 3. Maintainability of Refund Claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 54 of the CGST Act prescribes limitation for refund claims. The Court considered CBIC Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, which extended the period for filing refund claims, and relevant Circulars No. 183/15/2022-GST and No. 193/05/2023-GST. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the refund claims filed by the petitioner for April and May 2022 were not barred by limitation in light of the CBIC Notification. The appellate authority's rejection on limitation grounds was set aside. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had filed refund claims within the extended period prescribed by the Notification. The Revenue's contention of limitation was contrary to the applicable law and notifications. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the extended limitation period as per the CBIC Notification to uphold the maintainability of the refund claims. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument regarding limitation was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory extension. Conclusion: The refund claims are maintainable and not barred by limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act. 4. Interpretation of the Master Services Agreement and its Impact on the Nature of Services Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Contractual interpretation principles and the statutory definitions under GST laws were applied. The Court relied on the detailed clauses of the Master Services Agreement to understand the relationship between the parties. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Agreement established a principal-to-principal relationship with the petitioner providing services as an independent contractor. The absence of agency or intermediary clauses, the payment terms, and the rights and obligations confirmed the independent nature of the service provider. The Agreement's clause 10 explicitly negated intermediary status. Key Evidence and Findings: The Agreement's scope of services, payment terms, intellectual property rights, confidentiality, non-compete, and termination clauses collectively demonstrated an independent service provider relationship rather than an intermediary or agent relationship. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal definitions to the contractual terms and found that the petitioner's role was that of an independent service provider. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's reliance on the impugned appellate order which classified the petitioner as an intermediary was rejected based on the contractual evidence. Conclusion: The Master Services Agreement supports the petitioner's claim of being an independent service provider and not an intermediary. Significant Holdings: "In terms of Section 2 (13) of the IGST Act, 2017, the definition of what is an intermediary would show that it would mean a broker or agent or any other person and the name by what he is called is not important or relevant; what is important/relevant is the function he provides and that would be arranging or facilitating the supply of goods or services or both or of securities; such facilitation or arrangement should be between two or more persons; further, he should not make this supply on his own account." "Absence of these ingredients would show that the relationship was not really one of agency but of an independent service provider." "The petitioner renders services on its own account to the service receiver located outside India and it does not enable supply between the foreign recipient and the third parties." "The impugned orders and demands made by the respondents deserve to be quashed." "The refund claims of the petitioner are not barred by limitation in the light of the CBIC Notification bearing No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 which is applicable to the refund claim of the petitioner." "The respondents are directed to grant/pay refund in favour of the petitioner together with interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." The Court's final determinations on each issue are: 1. The petitioner is not an 'intermediary' under the IGST Act or Finance Act but an independent service provider. 2. The services rendered qualify as export of services and are exempt from GST liability under the intermediary classification. 3. The refund claims filed under Section 54 of the CGST Act are maintainable and not barred by limitation. 4. The impugned appellate orders rejecting refund claims and classifying the petitioner as an intermediary are set aside. 5. The original Order-in-Original granting refund is restored, and the respondents are directed to pay the refund with interest within three months.
|
