IGST | Marketing & Technical Support Services To Foreign Parent Qualify As Export Of Services, Not Intermediary: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that marketing and technical support services provided by the assessee to its foreign parent qualify as export of services under the IGST Act (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) and do not constitute intermediary services.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the place of supply of these services is outside India, satisfying all conditions for export of services, and the assessee is eligible for a refund of IGST paid.

In the case at hand, the assessee/petitioner provided marketing support services and Technical Support Services to its foreign parent company under a Master Service Agreement dated 01.04.2014.

The assessee treated these services as an export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, and claimed a refund for the period from April 2021 to March 2022.

The refund claim was rejected by the department through an order on the grounds that these services are intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.

As per the assessee, it is not an intermediary service provider, and since the services provided by the assessee amount to export of service, the assessee is not liable to pay IGST as demanded by the department.

The counsel for the assessee argued that in assessee's own case in relation to pre-GST / service tax regime, the CESTAT, Bengaluru, has already come to the conclusion that the assessee was not an intermediary in relation to pre-GST tax period and the said order dated 28.03.2022 has attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon the department especially when there is no change in the activity of the assessee during pre-GST and post-GST period.

The bench, after examining the Master Service Agreement dated 01.04.2014 entered into by the assessee with its foreign / parent company in Singapore and other documents, opined that the assessee is not an intermediary and the service supplied by the assessee amounts to export of services.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition and directed the department to refund in favour of the assessee.

Case Title: M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I)

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.25598 OF 2024

Counsel for Petitioner: Ravi Raghavan and Samruddhi Shetty

Counsel for Respondent: Jeevan J. Neeralgi

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 4