High Court: IT Services to Foreign Parent Are ‘Export of Services’, Not Intermediary:

High Court: IT Services to Foreign Parent Are ‘Export of Services’, Not Intermediary

Court rules that the Indian subsidiary providing software and consultancy support to its US parent acts on a principal-to-principal basis, entitled to GST refund.

HC: IT Subsidiary’s Services to US Parent Are Export of Services; GST Refund Cannot Be Denied

authorMeetu KumaridateDec 6, 2025
Last update on Dec 6, 2025
High Court: IT Services to Foreign Parent Are ‘Export of Services,’ Not Intermediary Infodesk India Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of InfoDesk Inc., USA, approached the High Court after its GST refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority and later upheld by the appellate authority. The company provides software consultancy, IT infrastructure support, and editorial and content services exclusively to its US parent under a detailed services agreement.  Claiming that the transactions constituted "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, the petitioner applied for a refund of unutilized ITC. However, the refund was denied. With no functional Appellate Tribunal available under Section 110 of the CGST Act, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction to challenge the findings.
Mass 153A Assessments Quashed: High Court Says 153D Approvals Were “Ritualistic, Not Real”
Issue Before HC: Whether the Indian subsidiary’s software consultancy and support services rendered exclusively to its foreign parent qualify as “export of services” or whether they constitute “intermediary services” under the IGST Act, thereby impacting refund eligibility.
Interest on Delayed Agricultural Income Tax Not Deductible; Rules Kerala High Court
HC's Order: The Hon'ble HC held that the petitioner was providing services on its own and not arranging or facilitating services between two different parties. The Court noted that the Indian subsidiary earned cost plus an 8% markup and bore all operational expenses independently. Thus, the Court decided that the activities satisfied all conditions under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act for export of services and did not fall within the statutory definition of intermediary services under Section 2(13). The Court, while relying on Charomotolab and Biotech Solutions, clarified that the relevant date for limitation is the date on which the refund application is filed on the GST portal and acknowledged with an ARN, not the later physical submission of documents. Therefore, the Court quashed the Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal, directing the department to process the refund afresh. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2166
Up Next

Loading suggestions…