Genpact Services LLC Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeals arose from a common Order-in-Appeal dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Gurugram, which allowed the Revenue’s appeals by setting aside Orders-in-Original granting refunds to the appellant. The three appeals covered the periods July 2013 to December 2013, January 2017 to March 2017, and April 2017 to June 2017, involving a total refund claim of ₹14,55,37,036. The appellant, Genpact Services LLC, India Branch, provided back-office support services, including call centre services, back-office management and IT helpdesk services, to the customers of Genpact International Inc. (GI), USA, under a Master Services Sub-Contracting Agreement dated 01.01.2013.
The appellant had no contractual relationship with GI’s customers, was remunerated solely by GI on a principal-to-principal basis, and treated the services as exports under Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, claiming refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with the applicable refund notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant was an “intermediary” under Rule 2(f) read with Rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, denied export benefits and consequently denied the refunds.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the Revenue itself had acknowledged that GI was engaged in BPO and IT services and that the appellant functioned as GI’s subcontractor without any agreement with GI’s overseas customers. It argued that it did not arrange or facilitate services but itself provided the contracted services to GI on a principal-to-principal basis, making GI its customer. The appellant further submitted that the issue stood settled by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in cases concerning its group company, Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., involving an identically worded agreement with GI.
