IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25609 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 138 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Sd/-

==================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==================================================

INFODESK INDIA PVT. LIMITED Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

==================================================

Appearance:

MR ANAND NAINAWATI(5970) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 02/01/2025 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Param Shah for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Param Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. Having regard to the controversy arising in the writ petitions with narrow compass with the consent of learned advocates, the matters are taken up for hearing.

(i) These two petitions are filed challenging the Order-in-

Appeal whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioner are dismissed confirming the Order-in-Original.

(ii) The petitioner is registered under provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and is engaged in the business of content integration by adding insight (smart data which is run through AI techniques and human curation) that helps resolve challenges in business.

(iii) The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of InfoDesk.

Inc. situated at USA and is established exclusively for the purpose of servicing its parent organizations’ technical requirements and for that purpose, the petitioner has developed products and services for InfoDesk. Inc. It is the case of the petitioner that it manages IT infrastructure, editorial and content creation activities, customer support and custom usage report generation for the clients of its parent company.

(iv) The services agreement dated 21^st February 2011 was entered between the petitioner and its parent company providing information services and consultancy in the business of software development, editorial services and IT services.

(v) It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the services agreement, the parent company raises its requirements and queries which are assigned to the petitioner in form of “JIRA tickets’ which is a software application and a service desk platform. The JIRA tickets have a detailed description of the kind of service required by InfoDesk. Inc. from the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that it has hired employees for providing these Software Consultancy Services to its parent company which provides remuneration to these employees in exchange of these services. The employees of the petitioner are assigned with the task of methodically engaging with the raised queries of parent company on the common platform of JIRA tickets.

(vi) The petitioner has also regularly raised tax invoices for providing software consultancy services to its parent company and for providing such services, the petitioner had received various inputs and input services and availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the aforesaid inputs and input services.

(vii) According to the petitioner, services provided to its parent company are in nature of ‘export of service’ in terms of provisions of Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘IGST Act’) as the petitioner fulfills the requirements of Section 2(6) of IGST Act, being ‘zero-

rated supply in terms of Section 16 of IGST Act.

(viii) The petitioner, therefore, filed refund application in accordance with the procedure prescribed vide Circular No.17/17/2017-GST dated 15^th November 2017 and Circular No.24/24/2017-GST dated 21^st De