The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax - GST vs. Wipro Technologies
Original PDF →Facts
The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Central Tax - GST, Bangalore East Commissionerate) filed two appeals before the High Court of Karnataka against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had allowed the refund of CENVAT Credit to Wipro Technologies, the respondent assessee. Wipro Technologies, engaged in providing Information Technology Services, had claimed a refund of CENVAT Credit on input services used for providing export services. The Revenue had rejected this claim, contending that the output services were not taxable, and therefore, no refund was admissible. The period in dispute pertains to a time when Information Technology Software Services were not defined as taxable services.
Held
The High Court held that the controversy was no longer res integra in view of numerous judgments of the High Court, including the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions and other referred judgments. The Court had categorically held that even if the export of software was not a taxable service, the assessee is still entitled to a refund of CENVAT Credit. The Court noted that the respondent's submission regarding the finality of the mPortal judgment was not disputed by the Revenue's counsel. Therefore, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, as they were covered by the aforementioned judgments. The Court found no need for further independent consideration of these questions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT's final order is legally sustainable in allowing the refund of CENVAT Credit when the impugned services were not defined as taxable services under the CENVAT Credit Rules? 2. Whether a person is entitled to claim a refund of CENVAT Credit used in inputs for the export of services when the said activity was not defined as a taxable service under Section 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? 3. Whether the CESTAT was correct in relying on this Court's judgment in the case of mPortal as a binding precedent, despite it not being challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground of monetary limits? Contentions: Petitioner (Revenue): Argued that unless the output services are taxable, the assessee is not entitled to a refund of CENVAT Credit. Since the services were exported and not subjected to service tax, the assessee should not be allowed to claim a refund of tax suffered on input services. Respondent (Assessee): Submitted that Information Technology Software Services were later made taxable by amendment effective from 16.05.2008, but were not taxable during the period in question. Contended that the taxability of output services is not a prerequisite for claiming a refund of input services when services are exported. Relied on judgments from this Court and other tribunals, including mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s C.S.T. Bangalore.
Sections Cited
CENVAT Credit Rules, Section 3(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER BEARING NO.20580-20582/2020 AND NO.20579/2020 RESPECTIVELY DATED 03/09/2020 PASSED BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND)
These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”) in Appeal Nos.A/20579-20582/2020 dated 03.09.2020 by raising the following substantial questions of law:
WHETHER, the impugned Final Order of the CESTAT is legally sustainable in allowing the refund of CENVAT Credit though the impugned services were not defined as taxable service in terms of definitions contained in CENVAT Credit Rules.?
WHETHER, the person is entitled to claim refund of CENVAT Credit used in inputs used in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB export of services when the said activity was not defined as taxable service in terms of Section 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
WHETHER, the CESTAT was right in relying upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case mPortal as a binding precedent as the same was not challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground of monetary limits?
That the assessee is engaged in providing Information Technology Services. The assessee has incurred input tax on the services used in providing Information Technology Services. The assessee claimed refund of CENVAT Credit on input or input services for providing such export services. The claim came to be rejected by the Revenue holding that the output services are not taxable services. In other words, it held that unless the output services are taxable, the assessee is not entitled for refund of CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal, by following various orders of this Court and other High Courts held that the assessee is entitled to refund of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB CENVAT Credit even when the output services are not taxable.
Sri.Jeevan J Neeralgi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that unless output services are taxable, the assessee is not entitled to refund of CENVAT Credit. It is further submitted that the services are exported and the same were not subjected to service tax. Hence, the assessee is not entitled to claim refund of tax suffered on input services.
On the other hand, Sri.Rajesh Chander Kumar Rohra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent submits that subsequently by amendment, w.e.f. 16.05.2008, the Information Technology Software Services is held to be taxable. However, the period in question, the said services were not taxable. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the taxability of output services is not a pre- condition for claiming refund of input services where services are exported. In support of his submission, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB learned Senior Counsel relies on the following judgments of this Court: (i) mPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS P.LTD. v/s C.S.T. BANGALORE (2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.); (ii) KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD. v/s COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., PUNE-1 (2013 (32)S.T.R. (Tri.Mumbai); (iii) PR.COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX SERVICE AX COMMISSIONERATE-II, TTMC/BMTC BUILDING, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560071 v/s mPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD. (2016-TIOL-692-HC- KAR-ST); (iv) COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE-TAX v/s M/S.NARUS NETWORKS PVT.LTD. (CEA No.44/2015 D.D. on 14.03.2016); (v) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX v/s BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PVT.LTD. (CEA No.6/2016 D.D. No.26.04.2016)
We have considered the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee- respondent. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB
A perusal of the controversy and substantial questions of law raised for consideration of this Court and the judgments cited at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the controversy would no more res-integra in view of catena of judgments of this Court i.e., mPortal India Wireless Solutions (supra) and other judgments referred to supra. This Court has categorically held that even though export of software is not taxable service, but still the assessee is entitled to refund of CENVAT Credit. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel that the said judgment has reached finality. The said submission is not disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue.
The judgments referred (supra) answered the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal. The questions are answered against revenue by the above referred judgments. The questions needs no further independent consideration. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29350-DB
As the substantial questions of law raised for consideration of this Court are covered by the judgments referred to supra and are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, both the appeals are dismissed. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.