High Court of Punjab & Haryana21 July 2026

Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST

CWP NO. 22461 OF 2023

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner, an information technology and IT-enabled services provider, was treated as exporter and granted refund of unutilized input tax credit for same services in periods before and after, rejection of refund for intervening period by classifying petitioner as intermediary without material distinction in services was illegal and arbitrary, so appellate order was set aside

Provisions considered

Section 2(6), section 2(13), section 13 and section 16 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Supreme Court21 Sept 2026

For revenue

Matrix Cellular (international) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi

SLP dismissed against review petition of High Court holding that where assessee withdrew refund application after issuance of deficiency memo and later sought interest for that disputed period in review petition on ground of error apparent, as no error or mistake was found in earlier judgment denying interest for that period, review petition was not maintainable and not considered on merits

Madras High Court18 Sept 2026

For assessee

McKinsey Global Services India Pvt ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals II)

Where SEZ Unit's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54 read with Rule 89 and Section 16 was rejected on ground refund provisions applied only to suppliers to SEZ, Rule 89(1) did not restrict such claims to suppliers, and SEZ Unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized ITC in accordance with law

Madras High Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Wipro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Where SEZ unit exported information technology services on payment of IGST after utilising ITC distributed through ISD mechanism, it was held entitled to claim refund under zero-rated supply provisions as proviso restricting refund to supplier applied only to direct supplies to SEZ and petitioner qualified for zero-rated refund route

Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Matrix Cellular (international) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi

McKinsey Global Services India Pvt ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals II)

Wipro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Read the full analysis