Cvent India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition filed by Cvent India Private Limited, which provides export of information technology and other business support services to its overseas parent company in the United States. The petitioner challenged rejection of its refund claim for unutilized ITC for January 2019 to March 2019 under Section 16(3) of the IGST Act read with Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, relating to zero-rated export services. The refund was rejected on the ground that the petitioner qualified as an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, attracting Section 13(8)(b) read with Section 2(6).
The petitioner primarily contended that the department had previously and subsequently granted refunds for the same services, treating it as an exporter rather than an intermediary. The petitioner relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in M/s. Corning Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and others, where identical circumstances were considered discriminatory when no distinction in the services was shown. The respondent did not dispute the petitioner’s factual assertions or the legal position in the Corning Technologies case and acknowledged that the earlier refund orders had not been challenged.
