The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi State Bench, has transferred a departmental appeal concerning a ₹1.53 crore input tax credit refund to the Principal Bench, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved determination of the place of supply of services.

The Bench of Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Rajiv Kapoor (Technical Member) has observed that Section 109(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires appeals involving a place-of-supply issue to be heard by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi.

Buy Now: E-Magazine: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)

The dispute centres on whether those services fall under the general place-of-supply rule in Section 13(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or the provision governing the organisation of educational and similar events under Section 13(5).

The appellant/assessee is a GST-registered entity providing management services, worked for foreign parties on projects focused on public health issues in India.

Its activities included creating awareness campaigns, educating the public, developing strategies to advise the Government, promoting discussion on health issues and facilitating an environment in which public health concerns could receive greater attention.

The company treated its supplies as exports of services and claimed a refund of accumulated input tax credit for exports made without payment of tax during October 2019 to March 2020.

The total refund claimed was ₹1,53,02,449, comprising Central Tax credit of ₹58,05,699, State/Union Territory Tax credit of ₹58,05,699 and Integrated Tax credit of ₹36,91,051.

The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim through an order dated December 30, 2021. The company challenged that decision before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), New Delhi.

The first appellate authority allowed the company’s appeal through Order-in-Appeal No. 176/2022-23, dated November 23, 2022.

The authority observed that the company was located and registered in India, while its services were limited to assisting and guiding foreign entities in implementing their projects.

It also noted that the research data, guidance and assistance were delivered to foreign entities located outside India and that payment for the services had been received in convertible foreign exchange.

As recorded in the Tribunal’s order, the first appellate authority treated the place of supply as falling under Section 13(2) of the IGST Act and held the company eligible for the refund.

The Assistant Commissioner, Division-Malviya Nagar, CGST Delhi South Commissionerate, subsequently filed an appeal before GSTAT under Section 112(3) of the CGST Act, challenging the appellate order.

The department contended that the first appellate authority had failed to consider Section 13(5) of the IGST Act.

Relying on a service agreement dated April 1, 2017, between Global Health Strategies LLC, New York, and the Indian company, the department argued that the company conducted programmes and activities in India.

According to the department, these activities included educational workshops, training programmes and similar events. It therefore characterised the supplies as services involving the organisation of educational events and services ancillary to such organisation.

On that basis, the department maintained that the place of supply had to be determined under Section 13(5), rather than Section 13(2).

Section 13(2) of the IGST Act provides the general rule for determining the place of supply of services where the supplier or recipient is located outside India. Subject to the exceptions specified in Sections 13(3) to 13(13), the place of supply is the location of the recipient.

Where the recipient’s location is unavailable in the ordinary course of business, the provision makes the supplier’s location the place of supply.

Section 13(5), however, deals with services supplied by way of admission to, or organisation of, specified events, including cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational and entertainment events. It also covers celebrations, conferences, fairs, exhibitions, similar events and services ancillary to their admission or organisation.

For such services, the place of supply is where the event is actually held.

The disagreement over which provision applied was therefore central to the departmental challenge against the refund-related appellate order.

Before considering the merits of the department’s appeal, the Delhi State Bench examined whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The company’s counsel, Shivam Batra, raised the jurisdictional objection, submitting that the appeal belonged before the Principal Bench because it involved a place-of-supply dispute.

The Tribunal recorded that the departmental representative had conceded the position. It also referred to a departmental communication dated August 3, 2026, submitted to the State Bench Registrar in response to a defect notice, acknowledging that the matter involved the issue of place of supply.

After examining the appeal papers, the first appellate order and the departmental communication, the Bench concluded that the dispute plainly concerned whether Section 13(2) or Section 13(5) governed the services supplied by the company.

It further noted that both parties agreed that the appeal involved a place-of-supply issue.

The Tribunal held that Section 109(5) of the CGST Act assigns appeals against orders of appellate or revisional authorities to the Principal Bench where even one of the issues involved relates to the place of supply.

Applying that provision, the Bench concluded that the Delhi State Bench had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the departmental appeal.

The order consequently addresses the proper forum for adjudication. It does not decide whether the services qualify as exports, whether Section 13(2) or Section 13(5) applies, or whether the company is ultimately entitled to the disputed refund.

The Tribunal transferred the appeal to the GSTAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

It directed the Registry to transmit the complete case record to the Principal Bench at the earliest. The parties were also directed to appear before the Registrar of the Principal Bench on October 7, 2026.

The substantive dispute over the ₹1.53 crore refund will therefore be considered by the Principal Bench.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Can GST Liability Be Reduced If Recipients Do Not Reverse ITC? GSTAT Admits Appeal