Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeal before CESTAT Chandigarh challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2020, which upheld rejection of the appellant’s refund claim of ₹3,25,50,445 for the period April 2017 to June 2017. The refund of unutilized CENVAT credit claimed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was denied on the ground that the promotional and marketing support services rendered by the appellant to M/s Airbnb Ireland were intermediary services and, therefore, not export of services.
The appellant submitted that it provided promotional and marketing support services to Airbnb Ireland under a Master Service Agreement executed on a principal-to-principal basis. It contended that the agreement involved only two contracting parties, expressly stated that the appellant was an independent contractor and not an agent, and did not authorize it to enter into agreements or bind Airbnb Ireland. The appellant further argued that it rendered services on its own account, raised invoices only on Airbnb Ireland, and had no contractual relationship with the customers of Airbnb Ireland. It relied upon CBIC Circular No. 230/24/2024-GST dated 10.09.2024, which clarified that services provided by an advertising agency to a foreign company are not intermediary services, and submitted that its activities were similar. The appellant also relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in Airbnb Payments India Pvt. Ltd. and several judicial precedents. It further argued that refund proceedings under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules could not be used to deny credit without initiating proceedings under Rule 14 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant additionally pointed out that refunds for financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 under the GST regime had been sanctioned by the Department.
