GST Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax
APPEAL NOS. APL 2 TO 7 (PB) OF 2026
The ruling in brief
Where assessee chemical manufacturer engaged Dow Europe GmbH under procurement agreement for vendor identification and negotiation support, and Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind assessee, services did not qualify as intermediary but as import of services, so place of supply remained in India, making IGST payable under reverse charge with refund claim rightly rejected.
Where assessee paid IGST under reverse charge on import of services, reversed related ITC and sought refund, in absence of export and with place of supply being in India, statutory conditions for refund were not met, and thus assessee had no entitlement to refund for the relevant period, warranting dismissal of appeals challenging rejection of refund claims
Provisions considered
Section 13, read with Section 2(13) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 89 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.