Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 --- Refund —- The petitioner challenged an Appeal order dated 30.09.2021, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against an order dated 26.11.2019. The petitioner sought refund of integrated tax on zero rated supply and filed refund application. The petitioner was issued a deficiency memo calling upon the petitioner to provide a copy of the Service Agreement with the service recipient. The petitioner provided copies of the two agreements entered into with OHMI Japan. The adjudicating authority held that the petitioner was providing support to the customers of OHMI, Japan and meant that the petitioner was rendering intermediary services. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved is covered by the decision of this Court in M/s Ernst And Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi and Anr., decided on 23.03.2023. The court observed that the petitioner is rendering the Market Research Services directly to OHMI, Japan. Therefore, insofar as providing Market Research Services is concerned, the petitioner cannot be held to be an intermediary. The issue involved is covered by the decision of this Court in M/s Ernst And Young Limited v. Additional Commissioner.

Held that:- The Hon’ble Court  set aside the order and directed the respondent to process the petitioner’s claim for refund of integrated tax relating to Market Research Services as claimed along with Interest.