Intermediary Vs Export

This decision sits at the heart of one of GST’s most contentious areas, classification of services as “export” versus “intermediary”. 

The Court does not decide the issue conclusively but delivers a strong procedural message: refund denial cannot rest on superficial reasoning without examining contractual substance. 

It reinforces that agreement-driven analysis is central to GST characterization, especially in cross-border services.

Issues for Determination

The central issue was deceptively simple but legally dense:

Whether services rendered by the petitioner to a foreign entity qualify as “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, thereby entitling refund under Section 16, or whether they fall within the ambit of “intermediary services”, disentitling such benefit.

Closely linked was the question of whether authorities can reject refund claims without examining the governing agreement and transaction structure.