BackgroundUnder a Procurement Agreement of 01.07.2021, Dow Europe, the group’s centralised procurement hub, identified and approved foreign suppliers, negotiated terms and facilitated purchases for the appellant for a fee of 3.5% of purchases. The appellant paid IGST under RCM as import of services for January–June 2022, then claimed refunds of about Rs. 13.42 crore, contending that the services were intermediary services taxable outside India under Section 13(8)(b). The refunds were rejected and the rejection upheld in first appeal.Final VerdictThe Tribunal noted that the CBIC tests in Circular 159/15/2021-GST are persuasive only, since CBIC circulars bind departmental officers but not the Tribunal, and that advance rulings (Airbus, Global Reach, Toshniwal) are not binding under Section 103. It accepted that three parties were involved, but held that the second test of two distinct supplies failed: Dow Europe, as the centralised procurement hub of the Dow Group, renders a core service on its own account as an independent contractor, without authority to bind the Indian entity, in line with Columbia Sportswear (Kar HC) and Blackberry India (Del HC). Holding that the services are not ancillary but a core service, and therefore an import of services with place of supply in India, outside Section 2(13) and Section 13(8)(b), the Tribunal answered all questions against the appellant and dismissed the appeals. It did, however, disagree with the appellate authority’s view that the refund claim was barred as an “afterthought”, since Section 54 permits refund of tax paid under a misconception within the time limit. Assessee.
Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of State Tax, 04-06-2026
BackgroundUnder a Procurement Agreement of 01.07.2021, Dow Europe, the group’s centralised procurement hub, identified and approved foreign suppliers, negotiated terms and facilitated purchases for the appellant for a fee of 3.5% of purchases. The appellant paid IGST under RCM as import of services for January–June 2022, then claimed refunds of about Rs. 13.42 crore, contending that the services were intermediary services taxable outside India under Section 13(8)(b). The refunds were rejected and the rejection upheld in first appeal.Final VerdictThe Tribunal noted that the CBIC tests in Circular 159/15/2021-GST are persuasive only, since CBIC circulars bind departmental officers but not the Tribunal, and that advance rulings (Airbus, Global Reach, Toshniwal) are not binding under Section 103. It accepted that three parties were involved, but held that the second test of two distinct supplies failed: Dow Europe, as the centralised procurement hub of the Dow Group, renders a core service on its own account as an independent contractor, without authority to bind the Indian entity, in line with Columbia Sportswear (Kar HC) and Blackberry India (Del HC). Holding that the services are not ancillary but a core service, and therefore an import of services with place of supply in India, outside Section 2(13) and Section 13(8)(b), the Tribunal answered all questions against the appellant and dismissed the appeals. It did, however, disagree with the appellate authority’s view that the refund claim was barred as an “afterthought”, since Section 54 permits refund of tax paid under a misconception within the time limit. Assessee.
2. BackgroundFor FY 2018-19 the appellant, an EPC contractor, reported tax in GSTR-3B Rs. 27,06,634 lower than in GSTR-1. It attributed the difference to credit notes and advance adjustments recorded in its books and GSTR-3B but not amended in GSTR-1. A Section 74 demand of Rs. 65,17,849 was raised. The First Appellate Authority found no intent to evade, but itself recomputed the case under Section 73, confirming tax and interest with a 10% penalty, holding that the credit notes were beyond the Section 34(2) time limit and recipients’ ITC reversal was unproven.3. Final VerdictRejecting Revenue’s reliance on Hamida v. Md. Khalil, the Tribunal held that unlike Section 100 CPC, Section 112 read with Rule 112 does not confine the Tribunal to questions of law; it is the last fact-finding forum, and that Dilip Kumar & Co. (on exemption notifications) had no bearing on whether tax was actually short-paid. It noted that the only lapse found was the non-reflection in periodical returns of debit and credit notes duly accounted in the books, at a time when online filing was not fully operational, and adopted a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach. Relying on the text of Section 75(2) and CBIC Circular 254/11/2025-GST, it held that once Section 74 fails, it is the proper officer, not the appellate authority or the Tribunal, who must re-determine tax as if the notice had been issued under Section 73. The finding that Section 74 did not apply was upheld, but the Section 73 determinations of both lower authorities were set aside and the matter remanded, with liberty to file amendments within one month and a direction to examine the genuineness of the credit and debit notes and decide afresh after a hearing.
Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Odisha Commissionerate of CT & GST & Ors. 11-02-2026
2. BackgroundFor FY 2018-19 the appellant, an EPC contractor, reported tax in GSTR-3B Rs. 27,06,634 lower than in GSTR-1. It attributed the difference to credit notes and advance adjustments recorded in its books and GSTR-3B but not amended in GSTR-1. A Section 74 demand of Rs. 65,17,849 was raised. The First Appellate Authority found no intent to evade, but itself recomputed the case under Section 73, confirming tax and interest with a 10% penalty, holding that the credit notes were beyond the Section 34(2) time limit and recipients’ ITC reversal was unproven.3. Final VerdictRejecting Revenue’s reliance on Hamida v. Md. Khalil, the Tribunal held that unlike Section 100 CPC, Section 112 read with Rule 112 does not confine the Tribunal to questions of law; it is the last fact-finding forum, and that Dilip Kumar & Co. (on exemption notifications) had no bearing on whether tax was actually short-paid. It noted that the only lapse found was the non-reflection in periodical returns of debit and credit notes duly accounted in the books, at a time when online filing was not fully operational, and adopted a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach. Relying on the text of Section 75(2) and CBIC Circular 254/11/2025-GST, it held that once Section 74 fails, it is the proper officer, not the appellate authority or the Tribunal, who must re-determine tax as if the notice had been issued under Section 73. The finding that Section 74 did not apply was upheld, but the Section 73 determinations of both lower authorities were set aside and the matter remanded, with liberty to file amendments within one month and a direction to examine the genuineness of the credit and debit notes and decide afresh after a hearing.
