Genpact India not to be considered as intermediary being not in direct contact with customers of Genpact International: HC

Case Details: Genpact India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2022] 144 taxmann.com 201 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Tejinder Singh Dhindsa & Deepak Manchanda, JJ.
  • Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv., Rohit Sud, Sachit Jolly, Disha Jham & Kumar Sambhav, Advs. for the Appellant.
  • Sharan Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Service Provider located in India. It entered into Master Services Sub-Contracting Agreement (MSA) with Genpact International Incorporated (GI) located outside India. It filed an application claiming refund of un-utilized ITC on account of zero rated supplies of services without payment of GST under Letter of Undertaking. The refund was rejected on the ground that services provided by petitioner were in nature of “Intermediary Services” and thereafter, it filed writ petition contending that it was rendering services “on its own account”.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court observed that the petitioner was providing services which had been sub contracted to it by GI and nothing had been brought on record to show that petitioner had a direct contact with customers of GI and there was nothing on record to show that petitioner was liasioning or acting as an “intermediary” between GI and its customers. Moreover, MSA entered between the petitioner and GI was clearly for purpose of sub-contracting services to petitioner by GI and did not in any manner indicate that petitioner would be acting as an “intermediary” so as to fall within scope and ambit of the definition of “intermediary” under Section 2 (13) of the IGST Act. Therefore, it was held that the order cancelling GST refund was liable to be quashed.