M/S Ba Call Centre INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, M/s BA Call Centre India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the rejection of its GST refund claim for the period April 2021 to September 2021. The refund was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the service provided was considered an 'intermediary'. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Gurugram. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on merits, holding that the service was an 'export of service'. The department accepted this order-in-appeal. Subsequently, the refund claim for the subsequent period, April 2022 to March 2023, under the same category, was also sanctioned. However, for the period October 2020 to March 2021, the petitioner was informed that a fresh application for refund would be required.

Held

The Court noted that the parties were ad idem that in light of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, nothing substantive survived in the petition. The affidavit confirmed that the refund claim for April 2021 to September 2021 was initially rejected as 'intermediary' service but was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) holding it as 'export of service', an order accepted by the department. The refund for the subsequent period April 2022 to March 2023 was also sanctioned. For the period October 2020 to March 2021, the respondent indicated that the petitioner would have to move a fresh application, which would be considered on merits and the entitled amount refunded. The Court disposed of the petition in these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's service qualifies as an 'export of service' for the purpose of claiming a GST refund, as opposed to being classified as an 'intermediary' service. This issue turns on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the GST law concerning the nature of services provided by the petitioner. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that their service is an 'export of service', as upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) in a prior order, and therefore eligible for refund. Revenue/State: Did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's classification as 'export of service' for the period April 2021 to September 2021, as they accepted the appellate order. However, for the period October 2020 to March 2021, the respondent indicated that a fresh application for refund would be necessary, implying that the prior adjudication did not cover this specific period.