The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Principal Bench directed refund with interest of about ₹56 crore of unutilised ITC, holding that services supplied on a principal-to-principal basis to foreign affiliates qualify as zero-rated exports.
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, has held that business support and software development services supplied by an Indian subsidiary to its overseas group entities on a principal-to-principal basis are exports under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, and not intermediary services under Section 2(13). The Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President, who wrote the order, and Anil Kumar Gupta, Member (Technical), allowed seven appeals against the rejection of refunds aggregating ₹55,99,74,202 for 2019-20 to 2022-23 [Expedia Online Travel Services India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Haryana, 2026-juristway.com-3249-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST].
The appellant renders supply sourcing support, supervision of third-party call centres, human resource and product support, and contract software development to Expedia Inc. and its affiliates on a cost-plus basis. The adjudicating and first appellate authorities treated these as intermediary services with the place of supply in India, relying on Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST.
The Revenue first objected that the appeals did not belong before the Principal Bench. Rejecting this, the Bench held that whether a supply is an intermediary service or an export determines the place of supply, so the first proviso to Section 109(5) of the CGST Act applied.
On merits, the Bench followed its ruling in M/s Navitas Eduservices Private Limited (APL/23/PB/2026) that “any other person” in Section 2(13) must be read ejusdem generis with broker and agent. The appellant could not bind its principal, had no contract with the end customers, and supplied services on its own account, so it was not an intermediary.
The Bench noted that a DGGI conclusion of proceedings dated 21 May 2026 had itself accepted five of the appellant’s eight services as exports. It treated that document and the CBIC circular as not binding on it, but said both supported its conclusion.
In one appeal, the refund had also been rejected for BRC mismatch, invoices missing from GSTR‑2A and lack of nexus of inputs. The Bench held that the show cause notice did not specify these grounds and the first appellate authority recorded no findings on them. All the orders were set aside, and the Department was directed to refund the unutilised credit with interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
2026-juristway.com-3249-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST
