Subsidiary’s Services to US Parent Are Zero-Rated Exports – ITC Refund Allowed | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 20 December, 2025

Case Details: Infodesk India (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 395 (Gujarat)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
-
Anand Nainawati for the Petitioner.
-
Deepak N Khanchandani & Param V Shah for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of a US company established exclusively to provide services fulfilling the parent company’s technical requirements by assisting it in carrying on the business of software development and related consultancy. It managed IT infrastructure, editorial and content creation activities, customer support, and raised tax invoices for providing software consultancy services directly to the parent company. It was submitted that the services were provided in an independent capacity and not as an agent or intermediary. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the petitioner was required to assist the parent company in carrying on its software consultancy business. The Court observed that the petitioner was to perform the services on its own account with payment based on actual costs plus an 8 per cent markup, thereby earning a profit. It found that the petitioner could not be regarded as an intermediary or agent and that the services were zero-rated exports. The Court directed the jurisdictional officer under GST to process the refund claim for unutilised input tax credit in accordance with Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.
List of Cases Referred to
- Chromotolab and Biotech Solutions v. Union of India [2022] 143 taxmann.com 374/[2022] 67 GSTL 160/[2023] 95 GST 199 (Gujarat) (para 9)
- Genpact India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2021] 130 taxmann.com 145/88 GST 285 (Punjab & Haryana) (para 12)
- OHMI Industries Asia (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner, CGST [2023] 150 taxmann.com 497/98 GST 435/74 GSTL 421 (Delhi) (para 12)
- Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Central GST Appeals [2023] 148 taxmann.com 461/73 GSTL 161/97 GST 820 (Delhi) (para 12).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA