Wipro Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
Summary: The petitioner, M/s Wipro Ltd., is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit engaged in providing information technology services. Its corporate entity operates across multiple geographies and, through an Input Service Distributor (ISD), input service credit was apportioned to several units, including the petitioner. The petitioner utilised the credit while paying integrated tax on exports of services and claimed that such exports were zero-rated supplies. Refund applications for multiple periods were rejected, leading to the present writ petitions. The petitioner contended that export of services falls within Section 16(1)(a) of the IGST Act and that, under Section 16(3)(b) read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, an SEZ unit which pays integrated tax on zero-rated exports can claim refund. It also submitted that GST law does not prohibit an SEZ unit from availing ISD-distributed credit and that the credit had been distributed in accordance with Section 20 of the CGST Act. The Revenue argued that SEZ units are entitled to tax exemptions and therefore could not avail credit or refund, and that Rule 89 permits only the supplier of goods or services to an SEZ unit to seek refund. It also relied on Rule 89(2)(f) requiring a declaration concerning tax collection from an SEZ unit and cited several decisions.
