https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388897 The AAR, Karnataka held that the applicant, providing coordination services to foreign affiliates, qualified as a pure agent of the sponsor under Rule 33 explanation. The applicant performed project management services for foreign affiliates in clinical trial arrangements, acting as a pass-through entity for payments to investigators without actual payment from its own account. However, the AAR determined it lacked jurisdiction under Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017 to rule on place of supply, and therefore could not determine whether the services constituted export of services. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388897 The AAR, Karnataka held that the applicant, providing coordination services to foreign affiliates, qualified as a pure agent of the sponsor under Rule 33 explanation. The applicant performed project management services for foreign affiliates in clinical trial arrangements, acting as a pass-through entity for payments to investigators without actual payment from its own account. However, the AAR determined it lacked jurisdiction under Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017 to rule on place of supply, and therefore could not determine whether the services constituted export of services. Case-Laws GST Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388897