{"id":585,"date":"2023-10-31T15:47:53","date_gmt":"2023-10-31T15:47:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=585"},"modified":"2023-10-31T15:47:55","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T15:47:55","slug":"delhi-high-court-allows-igst-refund-to-vodafone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=585","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court Allows IGST Refund to Vodafone"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

In a recent judgment[1]<\/sup><\/a>, the Delhi High Court ordered the Revenue Department to refund Integrated Goods and Services Tax (\u2018IGST\u2019) claimed by the petitioners in respect of telecommunication services rendered by them to Foreign Telecom Operators (\u2018FTO\u2019). Petitioners had entered into agreements with FTOs whereby they provided connectivity services to inbound subscribers of the latter. However, the Revenue Department rejected their refund claim on the ground that the services provided by petitioners did not amount to export of services. The High Court held otherwise.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petitioners had entered into agreements with FTOs wherein the former agreed to provide connectivity services to subscribers of the latter who were in India\/inbound subscribers. There was no privity of contract between the petitioners and subscribers of FTOs, the payments for connectivity services were made by subscribers to FTOs who, in turn, made payments to petitioners as per the terms of the agreement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Revenue Department rejected petitioner\u2019s claims for refund on two grounds: first, that the petitioners filed their claim for refund under Section 54 beyond the limitation period; second, the services provided by petitioners did not amount to export of services since the services were provided to inbound subscribers who were present in India and services were consumed in India. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that they entered into agreements with FTOs and provided services to the FTOs. The FTOs, in turn, provided services to inbound subscribers. Thus, the services provided by petitioners to FTOs amounted to export of services since the FTOs were located outside India and the place of supply of services was outside India.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delhi High Court did not delve deeply into the issue of whether the petitioner\u2019s claim was filed after the period of limitation. This is because the period of limitation was extended by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs via a Notification dated 05.07.2022. Thus, the only issue that the High Court had to engage with was whether services in question constituted export of services within the meaning of Section 2(6), IGST Act, 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delhi High Court Decides, Relies on Precedent  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 2(6), IGST Act, 2017 defines \u2018export of services\u2019 and states as follows: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \u201cexport of services\u201d means the supply of any service when, – <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n