Expedia India Wins ₹56 Crore GST Refund As GSTAT Holds Its Overseas IT And Business Support Services Are Exports, Not Intermediary Services

Expedia India, a Haryana-registered subsidiary of Expedia Inc., USA, provided software development and business support services to overseas Expedia group entities under service agreements.

It claimed that these services were exports and sought refunds of unutilised ITC totalling ₹55,99,74,202 for FYs 2019–20 to 2022–23.

The proper officers rejected the claims, finding that the services were intermediary services; the First Appellate Authority upheld those rejections.

In one appeal, additional refund objections—including BRC/FIRC mismatch, invoices not appearing in GSTR-2A and lack of nexus for certain inputs—were also raised, but the Tribunal found no adequately reasoned findings on them.

Section 109(5) of the CGST Act assigns to the Principal Bench cases in which any issue relates to place of supply.

Under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, an intermediary arranges or facilitates a supply between two or more persons, but does not include a person supplying the relevant goods or services on its own account; the Tribunal treated intermediary services as requiring a main supply between two principals and a distinct ancillary facilitation service, ordinarily involving at least three parties.

Section 2(6) of the IGST Act defines export of services through conditions including an overseas recipient, place of supply outside India, receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange or permitted Indian rupees, and the supplier and recipient not being merely establishments of a distinct person.

The Tribunal relied on CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST and its decisions in *Navitas Eduservices* and *Dow Chemical*, as well as the cited High Court authorities, including *Genpact India*, *Columbia Sportwear*, *Blackberry India* and *Fateh Education Consulting*, for the distinction between supplying services on one’s own account and merely arranging or facilitating another’s supply.

Section 56 of the CGST Act governs interest on delayed refunds.

The Tribunal held that the dispute necessarily concerned place of supply because classifying the services as intermediary services would affect the place-of-supply analysis and the claimed export treatment; the Principal Bench therefore had jurisdiction.

On the merits, it found that Expedia India supplied services to its overseas group entities under agreements operating on a principal-to-principal basis, without acting as their broker or agent or having authority to bind them.

The contracts with travellers and other customers were between those customers and the overseas entities, with no privity of contract between those customers and Expedia India.

The Tribunal accordingly considered Expedia India to be supplying services on its own account, not arranging or facilitating a separate supply.

It also considered the DGGI conclusion and CBIC circular supportive of that view.

As to the additional objections in one appeal, the show-cause notice did not sufficiently specify the alleged mismatches or missing nexus, and the appellate order did not provide reasoned findings; the Tribunal found the rejection on those grounds procedurally unsustainable.

It rejected the Revenue’s jurisdictional objection, set aside the adjudicating and appellate orders, and directed the Respondent to refund the unutilised ITC with interest in accordance with Section 56 of the CGST Act.