Savista Global Solutions PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Savista Global Solutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated March 15, 2023, and March 21, 2023, passed by respondent No. 2. These orders rejected the petitioner's refund claims totaling Rs. 3,11,83,790/- for the period July 2019 to December 2020 and Rs. 50,34,892/- for January 2021 to June 2021. The rejection was based on the ground that the services provided by the petitioner were classified as 'intermediary' services, thus not qualifying as exports. The petitioner also sought directions to allow refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) used for zero-rated supplies and to process provisional refunds. The respondents, through an affidavit, stated that the refund claims were in the process of being sanctioned in light of a previous decision.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents, through an affidavit, submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous as the Department was in the process of sanctioning the refund claims. This was in view of a previous decision dated April 24, 2023, in CWP No. 1933 of 2022 (Savista Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others). The Court further observed that the coordinate bench, in the aforementioned writ petition, had decided that the petitioner could not be held to be an intermediary and that the services provided qualified as an export of services. This decision had been accepted by the department and was being implemented. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of the decision in CWP No. 1933 of 2022, setting aside the impugned orders dated March 15, 2023, and March 21, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the services provided by the petitioner qualify as an export of services under the GST law, or if they fall under the category of 'intermediary' services, thereby disentitling the petitioner to a refund of ITC used for zero-rated supplies? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their services do not constitute intermediary services and should be treated as exports, entitling them to the refund of ITC. They relied on the principle that services exported outside India are eligible for refund. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner's services fall within the definition of 'intermediary' services, and therefore, the supply of such services does not amount to an export. They relied on the classification of services as per the GST provisions.