Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 2472/2023, CM Nos. 9473/2023, 9474/2023 & 51283/2023
Date of Judgment: 09.10.2023
Statutory Provisions:
-
Section 54(1) read with Explanation (2)(c), CGST Act, 2017
-
Section 2(6), 13 IGST Act, 2017
-
Notification No. 13/2022–CT dated 05.07.2022
Category: Refund of IGST – Export of Services
Facts (Paras 1–15)
Vodafone Idea Ltd., a licensed telecom operator, provided International Inbound Roaming (IIR) and International Long-Distance (ILD) services to Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) whose subscribers travelled to India. Under roaming agreements, the FTOs paid the petitioner for connectivity services rendered to their inbound subscribers (paras 6–9).
The petitioner filed four refund claims of IGST (export of services) for the periods Sept 2018–Oct 2020, ranging cumulatively to ₹7,12,38,724, details of which appear in the tabular statement on Page 3 of the judgment (para 8; see page image).
SCNs were issued citing several procedural deficiencies, including non-submission of BRCs, agreements, reconciliation statements, invoices, and alleged time-bar (paras 10–11).
Refund was rejected by four orders (para 12) on three grounds:
-
Time-barred under Explanation (2)(c) to Section 54;
-
Services consumed in India by inbound roamers—thus not “export of services”;
-
Indian operators allegedly not licensed to provide services to foreign entities under the Telegraph Act (para 13).
The Appellate Authority upheld these rejections (para 15), leading to the present writ petition.
Questions Before the Court
-
Whether IIR/ILD services rendered to subscribers of FTOs constitute “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act?
-
Whether refund claims were within limitation under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, read with Explanation (2)(c)?
Court’s Observations (Paras 16–24)
On Limitation
-
Refund claims were rejected alleging that payments were received in advance (para 16).
-
The Court noted no specific instance was cited by the department showing advance receipt prior to invoices (para 18).
-
However, the Court held it unnecessary to delve deeper because:
-
Notification No. 13/2022–CT dated 05.07.2022 excluded 01.03.2020–28.02.2022 from limitation computation (para 19).
-
-
Therefore, limitation ceased to be a contentious issue (para 20).
On Export of Services
-
The issue stood squarely covered by the Delhi HC decision in Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACST, 2018 (8) GSTL 32 (para 22).
-
Under Section 2(6) IGST Act, export is satisfied when:
(a) supplier is in India,
(b) recipient located outside India,
(c) place of supply outside India,
(d) payment in foreign exchange. -
The Court held the FTOs—not the inbound roamers—are the recipients of services.
-
Place of supply is outside India under Section 13 IGST Act since the recipient is located abroad (para 21).
-
The Tribunal had consistently accepted this position in Vodafone’s own earlier cases (paras 23–24).
-
Supreme Court admission of Revenue appeal did not stay refunds (para 24).
Judgment (Para 25)
The Court allowed the writ petition, holding:
-
Vodafone’s IIR/ILD services qualify as export of services.
-
Refund claims were not time-barred due to the exclusion of limitation period via Notification 13/2022–CT.
-
Authorities were directed to refund the entire amount of ₹7,12,38,724 claimed.
All pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Referred – Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Held |
|---|---|---|
| Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACST (2018) | Whether telecom connectivity services to foreign recipients constitute export under Service Tax regime | Held as export of services; recipient is foreign entity; place of supply outside India. Basis for present decision (para 22). |
| Vodafone India Ltd. – CESTAT Final Order 21.08.2014 | Whether international roaming services to foreign operators constitute export | CESTAT held export of services, directed refund. Appeal before SC admitted but refund not stayed (para 24). |
Between Fine Lines – Practical Takeaways for Industry
This decision affirms that international roaming arrangements between Indian telecom operators and foreign telecom operators are exports, not domestic supplies, so long as consideration flows from the foreign operator. The ruling also underscores the effect of COVID-period limitation relaxation, which protects refund claims that would otherwise have been time-barred. For telecom, ITES, and cross-border service industries, the judgment strengthens the principle that recipient location—not end-user physical presence—determines export status.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
