https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784392 The dominant issue was whether N/N 04/2019-IGST dated 30.09.2019, deeming place of supply for specified R&D/clinical trial services as the recipient's location, applied retrospectively to the period April 2018-March 2019. The HC held the notification was clarificatory and beneficial, issued pursuant to the 37th GST Council decision to clarify GST liability for services provided to foreign recipients; applying the principle that elucidatory amendments/notifications operate retrospectively (including per SC law on beneficial circulars/notifications), it concluded the services' place of supply was outside India where the recipient was located, so GST could not be demanded. Consequently, the impugned adjudication and appellate orders were set aside and the petition was allowed. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2026 09:59:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784392 The dominant issue was whether N/N 04/2019-IGST dated 30.09.2019, deeming place of supply for specified R&D/clinical trial services as the recipient's location, applied retrospectively to the period April 2018-March 2019. The HC held the notification was clarificatory and beneficial, issued pursuant to the 37th GST Council decision to clarify GST liability for services provided to foreign recipients; applying the principle that elucidatory amendments/notifications operate retrospectively (including per SC law on beneficial circulars/notifications), it concluded the services' place of supply was outside India where the recipient was located, so GST could not be demanded. Consequently, the impugned adjudication and appellate orders were set aside and the petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784392