Supplying AI-Powered IT Infra Services, Content To USA Corp By Indian Counterpart Is 'Export' Not 'Intermediary' : Gujarat High Court

In a judgment dated November 27, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the refund rejection order as in passing the same lower authorities erred in holding that Petitioner was providing 'Intermediary Service'. The Gujarat High Court clarified that Content integration by adding insight (smart data which is run through AI techniques and human curation) that helps resolve challenges in business did not constitute as an 'Intermediary Service'.

Petitioner, a wholly owned subsidiary of Info Desk. Inc. situated at USA and set up exclusively for technical requirements of the parent company was engaged for software consultancy. Petitioner developed products and services for managed IT infrastructure, editorial and content creation activities, customer support, custom usage report generation for the clients of its parent company.

Petitioner received various inputs and input services and availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) against invoice raised on the parent company for providing software consultancy services. It filed for refund which came to be rejected by Assistant Commissioner of CGST on twin grounds

• Application was hit by limitation under Section 54(1) read with explanation (2)(c)(i) of the CGST Act
• Software Consultancy Services rendered were an 'intermediary service' under Section 2(13) of IGST Act

Due to non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, Petitioner moved before the Gujarat High Court against refund rejection by the Appellate Authority.Petitioner relied on CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST (20 Sept 2021) clarifying intermediary scope to state that services were not 'Intermediary' and Refund filed was within limitation. It was submitted that portal filing date should be reckoned, not physical submission date.

On the aspect of intermediary, the Gujarat High Court from the service agreement inferred that the Petitioner stood as an independent company having distinct entity. In this vein, scope of services was clarified which included setting up of consultations and meetings between globally based experts, globally based clients, participation in any business of consultants, agents, sub-agents, liaison agents/liaison sub-agents for its parent company and foreign clients for such activities. Thus, it was concluded that service provided under bipartite (two parties only), not tripartite as required for Intermediary by Petitioner to its parent company was in independent capacity and not in the capacity of either agent or broker or any other person. The Gujarat High Court relied on precedents like Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India decision of 2022 by Punjab & Haryana High Court and Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner CGST Appeals-II, Delhi decision of 2023 by Delhi High Court.

On limitation too, the Gujarat High Court held in favour of the Petitioner considering that refund claims were filed within the limitation.

Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court directed to process refund claim in respect of IT infrastructure management services like editorial/content creation, customer support, and report generation rendered by Petitioner for its parent company. Services are provided on principal-to-principal basis, not intermediary.

Case Name: Infodesk India Private Limited

For Petitioner: Advocates Anand Nainawati, Deepak N Khanchandani

For Respondent: Advocate Param Shah